Allowing the petition the Court held that the assessee had in its annual report mentioned the technical know-how fee, royalty and technical assistance fee that it had paid and had also filed form 3CEB in which it had disclosed the details and description of the international transactions in respect of technical know-how and patents and regarding the royalty paid and lump-sum fees paid for the technical services. Before the original order was passed under section 92CA(3), the Transfer Pricing Officer also had raised all these queries and had considered the royalty, technical know-how fees paid. The assessee had not only filed its account books and other evidence but those had been considered by the Transfer Pricing Officer whose order also had been considered by the Assessing Officer while passing the original order under section 143(3). Therefore, there could be nothing which had not been truly and fully disclosed. The contention of the Department that Explanation 1 to section 147 provided that production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence should have been discovered by the Assessing Officer was no defence, was not tenable. The notice issued under section 148 and the reassessment order were quashed and set aside. (AY.2004-05)