JUDGMENT A.J. Shastri, J. 1. The petition is directed against issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 ("the Act" for short) dated 28.3.2012. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a partnership firm. Original return of income was filed by the petitioner alongwith attached documents under section 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year 2005-2006 on 28.10.2005 declaring total income of Rs. 18,09,040/-. Alongwith with said return under section 139 of the Act the petitioner had attached several documents and furnished particulars which are reflected on page-3 of the petition memo. It was also specifically pointed out by the petitioner about the issue pertaining to brokerage and commission during the hearing. The petitioner's return came to be selected for scrutiny and after scrutiny under section 143(3) of the Act, assessment order came to be passed on 27.12.2007. By that time, on 20.2.2006, notice was issued under section 143(2) of the Act and in compliance thereto and in response to the questionnaire which was furnished on 23.10.2007, the petitioner has replied again and furnished all necessary details by communication dated 28.11.2007. In addition thereto, the petitioner has also submitted a detailed reply on 5.7.2007 and in this regard during the course of hearing also, the petitioner has produced all necessary documents and books. It was then after considering several materials which was adduced, scrutiny assessment came to be passed. From the record, it emerges that against that scrutiny assessment, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before CIT(Appeals) and later on the department had filed appeal before Tribunal. The said appeal came to be dismissed on 22.10.2010 and pursuant thereto, the assessment which has been made on 27.12.2007 came to be final. It is the case of the petitioner that despite aforesaid circumstances, though issue has been deliberated and has been considered at detailed length, still however, after scrutiny assessment after a period of four years, notice dated 28.3.2012 came to be issued which is impugned in this petition. 2. In this background of facts, learned counsel Mr. Soparkar for the petitioner has submitted that powers under section 148 of the Act have been exercised after a period of more than four years. It was also submitted that there was no new material available with the authority which would form a belief to reopen assessment. 2. In this background of facts, learned counsel Mr. Soparkar for the petitioner has submitted that powers under section 148 of the Act have been exercised after a period of more than four years. It was also submitted that there was no new material available with the authority which would form a belief to reopen assessment. Learned counsel further submitted that it is not the case of the department that there was no full and true disclosure of income on part of the assessee and has submitted that the assessee has fully and truly submitted all materials which was available at his end. He further submitted that at the time of framing assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, relevant material has been considered and therefore, submitted that the authority has no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under section 148 of the Act. He submitted that if ultimately that be allowed, the same would tantamount to change of opinion which according to series of decisions would be impermissible. He also submitted that by way of draft amendment in the petition, it has been asserted that re-assessment proceedings have in fact, been initiated on the basis of audit objection raised by the audit wing of the department and therefore, the same is impermissible. It was also specifically pointed out that the reasons which are supplied for issuance of reopening notice, are based on proper verification of the record which was available on hand and therefore, the power to reopen cannot be exercised to review of to reform an opinion. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, requested the Court not to allow such reopening and that too after a period of more than four years. His main limb of argument is that after a period of four years, the authority has only to look to the aspect whether the assessee has fully and truly disclosed all material at the time of assessment or not. In the background of these facts, he submitted that such exercise of power on the part of the respondent authority should be quashed. In the background of these facts, he submitted that such exercise of power on the part of the respondent authority should be quashed. He has also drawn the attention of the Court that from the background of the facts, even on the basis of available material on record, the provisions of section 195 of the Act are not attracted and all throughout it is not the case that reopening is on account of some concealment of material and therefore, requested the Court not to allow such exercise to be taken on part of the respondent authority. 3. As against this, learned counsel Mrs. Mauna Bhatt for the revenue submitted that while issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, proper reasons have been assigned as to why reopening should be allowed. She submitted that may be it is not the case of true and full disclosure at the time of assessment by the assessee but at the same time, she submitted that there is a case of omissions on part of the assessee not to disclose that aspect and therefore, justified that notice under section 148 of the Act is just and proper. She has drawn attention of the Court to page 25 form 2D in which the fact about brokerage and commission is not reflected and that thereby she submitted that there is a clear omission on part of the assessee which warrants authority to exercise powers of reopening. It was also submitted that there is no straight-jacket formula that even if issue of reopening is given up after a period of four years, omission part can never be looked into. She further submitted that this is the material which has constrained the authority to issue notice under section 148 of the Act and therefore, this is a clear case of escape of income chargeable to tax on account of omission on part of the assessee and therefore, she requested the Court to dismiss the petition. 4. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties and before adverting to the contentions of respective parties, a reference is required to be made to the reasons which are supplied to the petitioner which are reproduced hereinbelow: "Reasons for re-opening the assessment under section 147 of the Act. 4. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties and before adverting to the contentions of respective parties, a reference is required to be made to the reasons which are supplied to the petitioner which are reproduced hereinbelow: "Reasons for re-opening the assessment under section 147 of the Act. On verification of the case record, it is noticed that the assessee has paid commission/brokerage to foreign companies and non-residents to the tune of Rs. 34,12,067/-. It is also noticed that TDS has not been made under section 195(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in respect of the above payment. Since the amount of commission/brokerage paid to foreign companies and non-residents without deducting tax at source as per provisions of section 195(1) of the Act, such commission/brokerage payment was required to be disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. In view of these facts, the undersigned has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. Hence, it is a fit case for re-opening the assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. Issue notice under section 148 of the Act. " 5. From the aforesaid material on record, it appears that attempt on part of the revenue is to reopen the assessment after scrutiny assessment after a period of more than four years. In view of the settled position of law, in absence of any circumstances about non-disclosure of true and full material on part of the assessee, reopening is not permitted. In the present case, in absence of such contingency as is reflected from the record of the case, it is not open for the respondent authority to exercise power of reopening of assessment which had already become final. While submitting that the petitioner had truly and fully disclosed each and every material at the relevant point of time, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court about the amount admissible under section 40A of the Act. He has drawn attention to form 3CT on page 32 and clause F in tabular form which indicates that the amount has already mentioned which is inadmissible under section 40A of the Act. He has drawn attention to form 3CT on page 32 and clause F in tabular form which indicates that the amount has already mentioned which is inadmissible under section 40A of the Act. Similarly, on page 41 in Annexure "A", a specific figure has also been mentioned in column items 10 and 11 which is reflecting the figure of commission received and commission paid and on the basis of that, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that material has been truly and fully disclosed before the authority and in absence of any such contingency, it is not open for the respondent authority to reopen the assessment after a period of four years. Even on the basis of material which was placed by the petitioner during the course of hearing, statements which have been produced before the authority which are part of the petition compilation on page 62, again learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention about figures which have been reflected pertaining to brokerage and commission and submitted that all the details have been specifically dealt with by the authority and therefore, it is not open on part of the respondent authority to reopen the assessment. From the reasons which are recorded as stated above, a specific reference about the fact that the authority has scanned the entire record of the case and upon verification of the record, reasons have been assigned and therefore, if this be allowed, it would be in clear violation of settled principles of law. It is therefore, submitted that action on part of respondent authority in exercise of jurisdiction under section 148 of the Act is impermissible. In a series of decisions, the Supreme Court as well as this Court has held that powers of reassessment after a period of four years can never be exercised if full and true disclosure is there on the part of the assessee. Here, from the record, it indicates that the petitioner has disclosed true and full materials before the authority not only with the return but, also at the time of scrutiny assessment. Therefore, this being the position, it is not permissible on part of the respondent authority to reopen the assessment under these circumstances. 6. Here, from the record, it indicates that the petitioner has disclosed true and full materials before the authority not only with the return but, also at the time of scrutiny assessment. Therefore, this being the position, it is not permissible on part of the respondent authority to reopen the assessment under these circumstances. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Vodafone West Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in Special Civil Application no. 16455 of 2012 dated 11.3.2013 wherein also, this Court had an occasion to deal with the issue whether reopening can be permissible on the basis of change in opinion by the authority. Here, in the case on hand, as stated earlier, every material was disclosed by the petitioner at the time of scrutiny assessment as well as at the time of hearing submitted vide communicated attaching several annexures as stated above. On the basis of this material simply because the authority has a different opinion, re-opening and that too, after a period of four years is not permissible. In the aforesaid decision, this Court has considered the decision in the case of Kelvinator India Ltd. and has not permitted reassessment on change of opinion. Para-13 of the said decision is quoted hereinbelow: "13. Heavy reliance is placed on the decision in case of CIT v. Kelvinator India Ltd. Reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561 by the petitioner to insist that the Assessing Officer has no right to reopen on changing his mind. Not only there is absence of element of non-disclosure of relevant material fully and truly necessary for assessment but both the grounds appear to have been on scrutiny, finalised." 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn the attention of this Court to another decision of this Court rendered in the case of Prasad Koch Technic Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income (OSD)-Tax in Special Civil Application No. 16074 of 2011 dated 2.12.2011 wherein also, the Court has specifically opined that in absence of any live link that the reasons recorded and the belief formed issue of notice for re-opening was treated as wholly invalid. Para-22 of the said judgment reads as under: "22. Para-22 of the said judgment reads as under: "22. In the reasons recorded, there is not even a prima facie belief or disclosure that on what basis, the Assessing Officer has formed his reason to believe that such payment to the foreign supplied attracted tax in India. In absence of any live link with the reasons recorded and the belief formed, we are of the opinion that the notice was wholly invalid." Therefore, we are of the opinion that the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner clinch the issue. Therefore, we are of the opinion exercise undertaken by the respondent authority of issuing notice under section 148 of the Act is not just and proper and is without jurisdiction and therefore, the same requires to be quashed and set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the revenue has relied on the decision reported in the case of 346 ITR 228 and has strenuously tried to submit that if there is an omission on part of assessee, then power of reopening is permissible. This decision cited by the learned counsel for the respondent authority pertains to reopening of assessment in the context of income falling under section 2(22)(e) of the Act regarding deemed dividend and in that context and background, the case was dealt with by the Court. However, while going through the said decision as a whole, even in para-8 of the said decision, relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of reported in 335 ITR 234, Gujarat, it was noticed by the Court that elaborate reasons were already recorded and in that context, it was propounded that no straight-jacket formula or universal formula can be provided. However, in that context, the Court has held that what would amount to true and full disclosure of all materials must depend upon each case and it is to be seen whether duty which is cast upon the assessee to disclose primary facts truly and fully at the relevant point of time or the same is to be judged and assessed on the basis of background of facts of each case. Here in the present case on hand, it is quite clear from the record that as and when required, the petitioner assessee has truly and fully supplied all material before the authority and scrutiny assessment has already been undertaken and even during the course of hearing also in details annexures were furnished indicating that the issue pertaining to brokerage as well as commission was forming part of the record and the same has been examined. Therefore, in the background of these facts, the decision relied by the learned counsel for the revenue is of no avail. In the background of aforesaid facts, in the case of hand, we have examined all material facts. The reasons recorded have also been examined by this Court and on the basis thereof, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned action on the part of the respondent authority to issue notice under section 148 of the Act initiating reopening of assessment is without authority of law and therefore, requires to be quashed and set aside. 9. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned notice at Annexure "A" is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly.