JUDGMENT M.S. Sanklecha, J. 1. At the instance of the Counsel, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the impugned notice dated 22 March 2013 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). By the above impugned notice dated 22 March 2013, the respondent No.1 – Assessing Officer is seeking to re-open the assessment for the Assessment Year 2006-07. 3. On 28 November 2006, the petitioner filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2006-07, declaring a total income of Rs.60.21 lakhs. On 21 April 2008, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, determining the petitioner's income at Rs.62.21 lakhs. 4. Thereafter, the impugned notice was issued on 22 March 2013 under Section 148 of the Act seeking to re-open the assessment for the Assessment Year 2006-07. In response to the petitioner's request, the Assessing Officer on 10 September 2013 served a copy of the reasons recorded by him for the issuing impugned notice dated 22 March 2013. The reasons as recorded read as under:- “Date: 22/03/2013 “Reasons recorded for issuing notice u/s. 147 of the I. T. Act, 1961 Talati & Pannthaky Associates P. Ltd. A. Y. 2006-07 1. In this case, it is seen that in the computation of income net profit as per P & L A/c. was taken at Rs.60,80,154/- as against actual profit of Rs.1,27,40,620/- thus income was considered less to the extent of Rs.66,53,466/-. 2. Secondly, as per the details, u/s. 44AB furnished along with return of income, it was seen that following amounts were disallowable: 1 PF & other amounts not paid by due date (section 2(24)(x)) Rs.15,19,692/- 2 Expenditure at club Rs.1,87,646/- 3 Under Section 40(a) Rs.1,48,82,417/- 4 Under Section 41 Rs.54,317/- 5 Under Section 43B Rs.4,16,166/- 6 Prior period expenses Rs.3,07,084/- Total Rs.1,71,79,776/- Less: Amount disallowed u/s.43B in the earlier year Rs.45,76,728/- Net disallowable Rs.1,26,03,048/- The assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year as per proviso section 147 of the I. T. Act. Hence, I have reason to believe that the income amounting to Rs.1,92,56,514/- has escaped assessment. Notice u/s. 148 is being issued separately.” 5. Hence, I have reason to believe that the income amounting to Rs.1,92,56,514/- has escaped assessment. Notice u/s. 148 is being issued separately.” 5. On 20 September 2013, the petitioner filed its objections to the above reasons recorded for issuing the impugned notice dated 22 March 2013. In particular, in its objections, the petitioner pointed out that all the facts which form the basis of the reasons for re-opening as recorded were all disclosed by the petitioner during the original assessment proceedings leading to the Assessment Order dated 21 April 2008. Thus, the impugned notice dated 22 March 2013 itself is without jurisdiction as there was no failure to disclose all facts necessary for assessment. It was also pointed out that there is a mistake in the reasons as the computation of income as filed along with the return discloses the net profit at Rs.1.27 Crores and not at Rs.60.80 lakhs as alleged. Besides, the details filed under Section 44AB of the Act were reflected in the computation of income as disallowable expenditure and added to the income of Rs.1.27 Crores disclosed in the computation of income. There was no fresh tangible material to have a reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In view of the above, it was prayed that the impugned notice be ordered to be withdrawn as being without jurisdiction. 6. The Assessing Officer by order dated 8 January 2014 rejected the objection of the petitioner to the reasons recorded for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act. The order dated 8 January 2014 merely recorded that the petitioner had failed to make a full and true disclosure of all material facts as the same were detected only as a consequence of full and further scrutiny of the documents already furnished by the petitioner. The other objection of the petitioner with regard to all the facts being already on record and the absence of fresh tangible material was not even dealt with. Accordingly, the petitioner's objections were rejected. 7. Mr. The other objection of the petitioner with regard to all the facts being already on record and the absence of fresh tangible material was not even dealt with. Accordingly, the petitioner's objections were rejected. 7. Mr. B. V. Jhaveri, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of the petition submits as under:- (a) The impugned notice dated 22 March 2013 is without jurisdiction as the reasons in support thereof do not indicate that there was any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment; (b) The reasons itself indicate an apparent error as it proceeds on the basis that the net profit as per Profit and Loss Account was taken by the petitioner at Rs.60.87 Crores instead of the actual profit is Rs.1.27 Crores. The computation of income filed along with return of income indicates that the net profit has indeed been taken at Rs.1.27 Crores and not Rs.60.87 Lakhs as alleged in the reasons in support of the impugned notice. (c) All details as indicated in the reasons were furnished during the assessment proceedings under Section 44AB of the Act along with return of income. The computation of income filed along with return filed by the petitioner indicate that the amounts of expenditure which are sought to be added as disallowed were either furnished in the computation of income itself or subject of information sought for during the course of assessment proceedings as evidenced by letter dated 27 March 2008. In view of the above, it was submitted that the present notice has been issued on mere change of opinion. 8. Per contra, Mr. Ahuja, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent supports the impugned notice dated 22 March 2013 as well as the order dated 8 January 2014, rejecting the petitioner's objection to the reasons recorded for issuing the impugned notice. In support, it is submitted as under:- (a) That there was a failure on the part of the petitioner to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. According to him, full scrutiny of the record was required to be done so as to detect facts which were not recorded/ presented in a manner to invite the attention of the Assessing Officer. Thus, there was a failure to disclose facts fully and truly on the part of the petitioner. According to him, full scrutiny of the record was required to be done so as to detect facts which were not recorded/ presented in a manner to invite the attention of the Assessing Officer. Thus, there was a failure to disclose facts fully and truly on the part of the petitioner. In the circumstances, the revenue is entitled to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2006-07; (b) So far as the disallowance of various expenditure recorded in the reasons for issuing the notice is concerned, the same would be a subject matter of examination during the reassessment proceeding. The explanation offered by the petitioner in respect of items being disallowed would be considered during the relevant proceeding. 9. It is an undisputed position that the impugned notice dated 22 March 2013 has been issued beyond the normal period of four years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year i.e. 2006-07. The first proviso to Section 147 of the Act which would apply provides that where an assessment is done under Section 143(3) of the Act then no action for reassessment will be taken after the end of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless there has been failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. From the reasons recorded for issuing the impugned notice dated 22 March 2013, it is evident that all material on the basis of which the Assessing Officer formed the reasonable belief that income has escaped assessment were on record during the assessment proceedings, leading to the Assessing Order dated 21 April 2008. It is, therefore, clear that there has been no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. In fact, the order dated 8 January 2014 rejecting the objection for re-opening the assessment does not dispute that facts were disclosed. The reasons for re-opening is that the facts could be detected only on full and detailed scrutiny. In the present case, the Assessment Order dated 21 April 2008 has been passed under Section 143(3) of the Act i.e. scrutiny proceedings. Therefore, the Assessing Officer would have had ample occasion to consider and detect all the material disclosed by the petitioner during proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act. In the present case, the Assessment Order dated 21 April 2008 has been passed under Section 143(3) of the Act i.e. scrutiny proceedings. Therefore, the Assessing Officer would have had ample occasion to consider and detect all the material disclosed by the petitioner during proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act. Besides, from the reasons recorded for re-opening of the assessment, it is very clear that the same has been issued on examination of the computation of the income and details furnished under Section 44AB of the Act. In fact, the reason proceeded on the basis that the computation of income was presented by the petitioner along with its return of income. Similarly, it is not denied that the details under Section 44AB of the Act were furnished along with the return of income. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was a failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose material facts necessary for assessment proceeding during the original proceedings leading to the Assessment Order dated 21 April 2008. On the basis of the above, we find that there has been no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment during the original assessment proceeding leading to Assessment Order dated 21 April 2008. Thus, the impugned notice dated 22 March 2013 is unsustainable. 10. In view of our above finding, there is no occasion to consider the petitioner's other contention that there is no reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment as the present proceeding initiated by the impugned notice dated 22 March 2013 is mere change of opinion. 11. In the above circumstances, we hold that the impugned notice dated 22 March 2013 is an order without jurisdiction, as the requirement of the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act is not satisfied. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 22 March 2013 issued under Section 148 of the Act is quashed and set aside. The consequent order dated 8 January 2014 of the Assessing Officer rejecting the petitioner's objection to the reasons recorded for issuing impugned notice dated 22 March 2013 under Section 148 of the Act also does not survive. 12. The petition is allowed in the above terms, with no order as to costs.