In Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT  ( 2011) 336 ITR 136( Delhi)(HC)  and other cases, High Court had held that interpretation of section 147, read with Explanation 3, is restrictive, so as to sustain only additions made in course of reassessment proceedings subject to additions of amounts adverted to in reassessment notice in ‘reasons to believe’ under section 147/148  in N. Govinda Raju v. ITO( 2015) 377 ITR 243 ( Karn) (HC)  held that  Explanation 3 was inserted in section 147 by which it has been clarified that Assessing Officer can assess income in respect of any issue which has escaped assessment and also ‘any other income’ which comes to his notice subsequently during course of proceedings.  High Court held  that there being some doubt as to accuracy of interpretation of section 147, appropriate course would be to refer issue to Full Bench. Following issue accordingly framed for reference to the Full Bench  i.e. “ whether the view expressed in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT  ( 2011) 336 ITR 136( Delhi)(HC)  following in CIT Jet Airways (I) Ltd (2011) 331 ITR 236( Bom) (HC) and followed later in CIT v. Monarch Educational Society  (2016  ) 387 ITR 416 ( Delhi) (HC)  with respect to the interpretation of Section 147 read with Explanation (3) of the Act , is restrictive , so as to sustain only additions made in the course of reassessment proceedings subject to the additions adverted to in the reassessment notice in the “ reason to believe “ under section 147/148 of the Act and notice pursuant thereof “ ? ( AY.2005 -06)