Allowing the petition the Court held that to meet a possible contention that when some account books or other evidence has been produced, there is no duty on the assessee to disclose further facts, which on due diligence, the ITO might have discovered, the legislature has put in Explanation to S. 147. The duty, however, does not extend beyond the full and truthful disclosure of all primary facts. Once all the primary facts are before the assessing authority, he requires no further assistance by way of disclosure. It is for him to decide what inferences of facts can be reasonably drawn and what legal inferences have ultimately to be drawn. It is not for somebody else-far less the assessee to tell the assessing authority what inferences, whether of facts or law, should be drawn. The Explanation  1 to S. 147 cannot enlarge the scope of the section by casting a duty on the assessee to disclose inferences, to draw the proper inferences being the duty imposed on the ITO. Therefore, it can be concluded that while the duty of the assessee is to disclose fully and truly all primary relevant facts, it does not extend beyond this. The entire basis for proposing to reopen, as can be seen from the reasons, is Conclusion. Entire basis for proposing to reopen, as can be seen from the reasons, is on the documents and submissions which were available before the AO, before passing of the original assessment order; in the reasons for reopening, there is not even a whisper as to what was not disclosed. Reassessment notice was quashed. (AY. 2013-14)