JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. By filing these petitions, the petitioner has challenged the impugned notices at Annexure-A to both the petitions, which are issued for assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 respectively. 2. The petitioner is a limited company and return of income filed for the aforesaid two years by the company was selected for scrutiny assessment and show cause notices were issued calling for explanations/details on several issues. The petitioner submitted such details and authorized representative of the petitioner attended the assessment proceedings, thereafter, assessment order was framed. Against such orders, the petitioner preferred appeals before CIT (A), which were partly allowed. Thereafter, the respondent issued impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act, reopening the assessment for both the Assessment Years. In response to the notices impugned, the petitioner filed revised return of income and requested to provide a copy of the reasons recorded prior to the issuance of reassessment notice. The respondent supplied a copy of such reasons, upon which the petitioner raised various objections on merits and requested to drop the reassessment proceedings. The respondent disposed of such objections without dealing with the contentions raised by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has filed present petitions before this Court. 3. Mr. Soparkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that no notice under Section 148 can be issued for reopening beyond six years from the end of the relevant assessment year and the only exception to this provision is contained in sub-section (2) of Section 150 of the Act. He further submitted that even this provision do not authorize the respondent to issue the notice for more than one reason. He submitted that for the Assessment Year 2001-2002, order was passed on 12.3.2004 whereby the Assessing Officer has allowed depreciation and on 16.1.2009, CIT (A) disallowed the depreciation for the year 2001-2002 and observed as under:- "6.1 It was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has paid an amount Rs. 28.87 lacs to Tarak Chemicals Ltd. on account of technical know-how. The assessee was requested to explain the basis of arriving at the valuation of technical know-how. 28.87 lacs to Tarak Chemicals Ltd. on account of technical know-how. The assessee was requested to explain the basis of arriving at the valuation of technical know-how. The assessee furnished copy of ledger account, copies of invoices raised and the copy of final account of Tarak Chemicals Ltd. A notice u/s 133(6) was issued to Tarak Chemicals Ltd. for furnishing the agreement along with details of valuation of know-how in respect of fee received from the assessee. No response was received from the Tarak Chemicals P. Ltd. The Assessing Officer observed that no agreement has been executed between the assessee and Tarak Chemicals P. Ltd. and concluded that this is a colourable device to reduce the profit of the assessee company. Accordingly claim of depreciation @ 25% on the technical know-how was withdrawn. 6.2 It is contended by the ld. Counsel that the Assessing Officer has disallowed the depreciation not only on the additions made during the year but also on opening WDV of the same on which the depreciation has been rightly allowed in the respective years. Accordingly, there is no justification to disallow the depreciation on the additions made during the year. 6.3 I have considered the submission of the counsel and the facts of the case. The appellant has claimed depreciation on technical know-how supposed to have been supplied by Tarak Chemicals. No information about the technical know-how, how valuation was done, agreement with the supplier or competence of the supplier was submitted. Even Tarak Chemicals did not respond to the Assessing Officer's query. Tarak Chemicals was found to be associated enterprise. During appellate proceedings also a specific query has been raised as to the details of assets created on account of technical know-how, copy of any agreement and the details of competence of suppliers. However, the appellant could not submit any information. This clearly proves that the related concern who had issued bills is not competent enough to supply any technical know-how. No capital assets in the form of technical know-how is created. Only, the payments were made against bills raised by the said party. This does not prove creation of any capital assets in the form of technical know-how. I, therefore, fully agree with the Assessing Officer that appellant has used this claim as a colourable devise to reduce its income. The purchase during the year may be Rs. Only, the payments were made against bills raised by the said party. This does not prove creation of any capital assets in the form of technical know-how. I, therefore, fully agree with the Assessing Officer that appellant has used this claim as a colourable devise to reduce its income. The purchase during the year may be Rs. 28.87 lacs but the appellant claimed depreciation to the extent of Rs. 46,91,710/- and therefore the Assessing Officer is justified in disallowing the claim of depreciation on nonexistent assets. While confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, he is directed to disallow the claim of depreciation in all other years since the entire claim of depreciation on non-existing assets is disallowable. For this purpose he may take necessary remedial measures under the relevant provision of the I.T. Act." 4. While issuing notice on 12.10.2009, it was stated as under:- "Whereas I have reasons to believe that your income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2001-02 has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. I, therefore propose to assess/re-assess the income/recomputed loss depreciation/ allowance for the said assessment year and I hereby require you to deliver to me within 30 days from the date of service of this notice, a return in the prescribed form of your income in respect of which you are assessable for the said assessment years." 5. He submitted that the period of limitation was over on 31.3.2008 while notice is given on 12.10.2009, therefore, Section 150(2) will not come into operation. In this regard, he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Green World Corporation, reported in (2009) 314 ITR 81 (SC), wherein it is observed as under:- "30. Indisputably, CIT (Shimla) had no jurisdiction to issue directions. Notices issued pursuant thereto would be bad in law. In this regard, he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Green World Corporation, reported in (2009) 314 ITR 81 (SC), wherein it is observed as under:- "30. Indisputably, CIT (Shimla) had no jurisdiction to issue directions. Notices issued pursuant thereto would be bad in law. We may, however, place on record that the Revenue in the 'List of Dates' while questioning the observations made by the High Court that the notices under Section 148 of the Act for Assessment Years 1996-97 and 1997-98 are not saved from the rigors of the law of limitation, under the exclusionary provisions of Sections 150(1) and 153(3)(ii) of the Act, stated:- "In this regard, it is important to note that these notices were issued to give effect to the directions contained in the revision order u/s 263 passed by the CIT on 12.7.2004 unlike Section 149of the Act, there is no time limit u/s 150(1) that starts with non-obstante clause and to that extent the observations of the Hon'ble High court are in error. Further Section 150(2) provides necessary restriction on Section 150(1) and even under the said restriction provided by Section150(2), the issue of notices u/s 148 of the AY 1996-97 and 1997-98 in instant case is within the restricted time limit provided u/s150(2) of the IT Act." Section 150 of the Act reads as under: "150 - Provision for cases where assessment is in pursuance of an order on appeal, etc. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 149, the notice under section 148 may be issued at any time for the purpose of making an assessment or reassessment or re-computation in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order passed by any authority in any proceeding under this Act by way of appeal, reference or revision or by a Court in any proceeding under any other law. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply in any case where any such assessment, reassessment or re-computation as is referred to in that sub-section relates to an assessment year in respect of which an assessment, reassessment or re-computation could not have been made at the time the order which was the subject-matter of the appeal, reference or revision, as the case may be, was made by reason of any other provision limiting the time within which any action for assessment, reassessment or re-computation may be taken." The aforementioned provision although appears to be of a very wide amplitude, but would not mean that recourse to reopening of the proceedings in terms of Sections 147 and 148 of the Act can be initiated at any point of time whatsoever. Such a proceeding can be initiated only within the period of limitation prescribed therefor as contained in Section 149 of the Act. Section 150(1) of the Act is an exception to the aforementioned provision. It brings within its ambit only such cases where reopening of the proceedings may be necessary to comply with an order of the higher authority. For the said purpose, the records of the proceedings must be before the appropriate authority. It must examine the records of the proceedings. If there is no proceeding before it or if the Assessment year in question is also not a matter which would fall for consideration before the higher authority, Section 150 of the Act will have no application." 6. Mr. Soparkar submitted that in view of above observations, both these petitions may be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned notices. 7. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent Mr. Parikh has also taken us through the notice dated 19.7.2010, reply to the notice and decision of the authority rejecting the contention of the assessee. He submitted that while passing the order dated 15.9.2010, it is observed in para 4 as under:- "4. The submission of the assessee which runs in 6 pages is too broad and general in nature in the facts of the case. The submission of the assessee has been duly considered but the same is not tenable in law, and therefore, not acceptable. The submission of the assessee which runs in 6 pages is too broad and general in nature in the facts of the case. The submission of the assessee has been duly considered but the same is not tenable in law, and therefore, not acceptable. On the basis of discussion made herein above; it is concluded that the issue claim of depreciation on technical know-how is not a question of "mere a change of opinion" but the question of rightful allowability of assessee's claim. Therefore it held that the case of the assessee is correctly reopened as per the reasons recorded. Reopening of the assessment on the basis of information available on record was held as valid as per ratio of decision in the case of Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO, (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC). Under the circumstances, reassessment proceedings initiated are legally justified and valid and therefore the objections to the reassessment proceedings/submissions of the assessee made against the reassessment proceedings do not hold good and are accordingly rejected and filed." 8. In view of this, he contended that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard Mr. Soparkar and Mr. Parikh. In view of the provisions of Section 150(1) and 150(2), on the basis of which order came to be passed on 5.11.2008, limitation was over on 31.3.2008, therefore, Special Civil Application No. 13999 of 2010 is required to be allowed. So far as other petition is concerned, no doubt it is within limitation but in view of observation of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Green World Corporation (supra), there was no material to issue notice for both the Assessment Years 2001-02 and 2002-03. 10. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the contention raised by the petitioner is required to be accepted. Accordingly, both these petitions are allowed and the impugned notices are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly. It will not be out of place to mention here that though Civil Application was dismissed but the order of CIT (A) has already been quashed by the Tribunal and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer.