ORAL JUDGMENT J. P. DEV ADHAR, J. :- In all these petitions, the challenged the notices issued under section 148 of the Income T , the said notices all dated 30th March, 2004, the assessments section 143(l)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 1997- 2000-2001 and 2002-03 are sought to be reopened. 2. Writ Petition No. 1355 of 2006 pertains to AY. 1997-9 No. 1356 of 2006 pertains to AY. 1999-2000. Writ Petition No. AY. 2000-01 and Writ Petition No. 1358 pertains to A.Y. 2 reasons for reopening all these assessments are common, all the are heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment. 3. Petitioner is a Hindu Undivided Family (hereinafter re assessee for short) and is assessed to tax since the year 1922. carrying on the business of cotton ginning and pressing from i located at Jalna, Lasur, Deulgaon Raja and Kurduwadi in Mahar office of the petitioner is situated at Bombay. 4. The returns of income filed by the assessee for the as question were processed and accepted under section 143 (1)(a) of. Act, 1961. In the said returns of income the assessee as in the pa expenditure incurred at the head office at Bombay to be set off income and the same was allowed on processing the returns of in 5. By the impugned notices all dated 30th March, 2 officer sought to reopen the assessments for the assessment y so as to disallow the loss/expenditure incurred at the administrative the petitioners at Bombay. The reasons recorded by the assessing officer for assessments in all the assessment years in question are more or less ns recorded for reopening the assessment for A. Y. 1997-98 it is seen, the return of income was filed on 28-10-97 declaring total ,of Rs. 28,55,120/-. The same was processed under section without any variation. During the previous relevant to A. Y. 97ee was carrying out the business mainly from Jalna Kurduwadi, Raja and Lasur. He has also claimed to have an office at During the course of assessment proceedings for A. Y. 2001-02, noticed that there was hardly any activity from the Mumbai office loss from the Mumbai office was disallowed. During the year relevant to A.Y. 1997-98, it is seen from the P Laic. for ended 31-3-1997 the only income showed by the assessee for 1997-98 from Mumbai office was dividend of Rs. 26,612 and of Rs. During the year relevant to A.Y. 1997-98, it is seen from the P Laic. for ended 31-3-1997 the only income showed by the assessee for 1997-98 from Mumbai office was dividend of Rs. 26,612 and of Rs. 35,544/-. As the assessees claim of loss of Rs. 4,14,046/ount of Mumbai office is not allowable, to that extent there was assessment in this case. In the circumstances, if approved ions under section 147 may be invoked in this case and notice section 148 may be issued for A.Y. 1997-98." petitioner objected to the reopening of the assessments and pointed e past the very same issue relating to the expenditure/loss at the has been adjudicated and allowed in the regular assessment orders section 143(3) of the LT. Act. It was pointed out that even in A.Y. disallowance made in respect of the loss/expenditure incurred at the Bombay office has been deleted by C.LT.(A) on 4-10-2004. However by an order .March, 2006 the objections filed by the petitioners were rejected by assessing officer. Hence, these petitions are filed to challenge the notices section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. Mr Kaka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the reopening of the assessment on the ground that "there was activity from Bombay office" is ex-facie erroneous, incorrect and the 80 days old record of the petitioner available with the department. He submitted that the issue as to whether the loss incurred by the administrative Bombay is allowable or not has been considered in the assessment cannot under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for several years fore, it is not open to the assessing officer to reopen the assessments on same ground. 8. Mr. Kaka referred to the assessment orders passed under section 143(3) . 1992-93 and A. Y. 1995-96 wherein the expenditure incurred at the office has been specifically discussed and allowed. He also referred to the order passed by C.LT.(A) on 4-10-2004 wherein the disallowance of the ture’ incurred at the Bombay office made by the assessing officer in 1-02 has been deleted. Accordingly, Mr. Kaka submitted that in the absence of any material record and merely by way of change of opinion, the included assessments cannot be reopened and, therefore, the notices impugned in all these petitions are liable to be quashed and set aside. 9. Mr. Accordingly, Mr. Kaka submitted that in the absence of any material record and merely by way of change of opinion, the included assessments cannot be reopened and, therefore, the notices impugned in all these petitions are liable to be quashed and set aside. 9. Mr. Shah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the submitted that the impugned notices have been issued based on order passed in AY.2001-02, wherein the expenditure incurred by, its Bombay office has been disallowed. The fact that the said order aside by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) sub sense October, 2004, would not invalidate the notices which were issue 148 of the I.T. Act on 30-3-2004. Accordingly, Mr. Shah submitted date on which notices were issued, the assessing officer had reason the income had escaped assessment. He submitted that the reason the assessing officer for reopening the assessments have been a C.LT. In this view of the matter, he submitted that the reopening assessments cannot be faulted and it is open to the petitioner to issues before the assessing officer and the same would be accordance with law. Accordingly, Mr. Shah submitted that there the petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed. 10. Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the opinions facts of the present case, the notices issued under section 148 Tax Act, 1961 cannot be sustained for the reasons set out hereafter. 11. Notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act can be issued for completed assessment only if the assessing officer has reason to any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The who believe presupposes existence of some material or information bas reasonable belief regarding income escaping assessment could be the absence of any material or information which prima facie sure income has escaped assessment, the action of the assessing office the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment cannot be sustained. The information relied upon by the assessing officer must be real and imaginary. In other words, the existence of some material or info prima facie, that the income has escaped assessment is a must before the assessment. 12. The information relied upon by the assessing officer must be real and imaginary. In other words, the existence of some material or info prima facie, that the income has escaped assessment is a must before the assessment. 12. In the present case, the facts established and accepted over that the cotton ginning and pressing business of the assessee carries factories located at four places in the State of Maharashtra are can managed by its office at Bombay and that the expenditure/loss inc Bombay office has all through been allowed to be set off against other the assessee. 13. The assessments for the years in question are sought to be the ground that in AY. 2001-02 the assessing officer has disallowed expenditure on the ground that there is "hardly any activity from office". The words hardly any activity does not mean that there is carried on at Bombay. It simply means that the business activity ca the Bombay office is negligible. The contention of the assessee has that the Bombay office is the liasion office and the same has been sc approved in the regular assessments passed under section 143(3) of for several assessment years including A Y.1992-93 and A. Therefore, when the expenditure incurred at the Bombay office consistently allowed to be deducted for several decades, in the absence IC material to show that in the past the said expenditure has been erroneously allowed, the assessing officer could not have reopened the judgments by merely stating that there is hardly any activity from the Mumbai 14. It is true that in A. Y.200 1-02, the assessing officer had made disallowance of the expenditure incurred by the assessee from its Bombay office ting that there is hardly any activity from the Bombay office. However, admittedly, the said disallowance made by the assessing officer in A.Y. 2001-02 . en set aside by the C.LT. (A) on 4-10-2004. This fact was brought to the notice of the assessing officer, however, the same has not been accepted on the ground that the order of C.LT. (A) is subsequent to the date of the issuance of the ground under section 148 of the Act. 15. In our opinion, the reasons recorded that there is hardly any activity the Bombay office, is totally vague and would neither constitute any al or information so as to form nexus or reason to believe that the income escaped assessment. (A) is subsequent to the date of the issuance of the ground under section 148 of the Act. 15. In our opinion, the reasons recorded that there is hardly any activity the Bombay office, is totally vague and would neither constitute any al or information so as to form nexus or reason to believe that the income escaped assessment. As stated earlier, for several decades, the expenditure incurred at the Bombay office of the assessee has been consistently allowed in expenditure assessments and there is no material on record to show that in the past expenditure has been erroneously allowed. Thus, in the present case, there is material or information based on which the assessing officer could form a reasonable belief that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. before, it is evident that the reopening of the assessments are based on pure age of opinion and there is no material whatsoever to constitute any basis for reopening the assessments. 16. We may note that for A.Y. 2002-03 the assessing officer has recorded additional ground for reopening the assessment, namely, excess depreciation been allowed on account of failure to deduct the capital subsidy from the en down value of fixed assets while claiming depreciation. The assessee in objection to the reopening of the assessment has clearly stated that the capital asidely received has in fact been deducted from the written down value of fixed while claiming depreciation. It appears that the explanation given by the assesses is accepted by the revenue, because, neither in the order rejecting the sections raised by the assessee, nor in the affidavit in reply and not even before Court, the revenue has pressed the ground for reopening the assessment on count of excess depreciation. Thus, the only ground on which the assessments sought to be reopened in all the years in question is that the expenditure/loss incurred at the Bombay office cannot be allowed as there is hardly any activity m the Bombay office of the assessee. In our opinion, the reopening of the assessments based on the above ground which is totally vague and devoid of any stance cannot be the basis for reopening the assessments. 17. In the result, all the petitions are allowed by quashing and setting aside notices all dated 30th March, 2004 issued under section 148 of the Income x Act, 1961. 18. 17. In the result, all the petitions are allowed by quashing and setting aside notices all dated 30th March, 2004 issued under section 148 of the Income x Act, 1961. 18. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.