JUDGMENT : A.J. Shastri, J. 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner is challenging the legality and validity of notice dated 8.7.2013 issued under Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act 1961 (for short 'the Act') for reopening of assessment for the assessment year. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner Company is dealing in the business of manufacturing and trading the chemicals and plant of the Company is located at Ankleshwar. The return of income for the relevant year was filed by the Company declaring loss of Rs. 23,27,909/- and return of said income was accompanied with the audit report prepared under Section 44AB of the Act. The petitioner's case came to be selected for scrutiny assessment by issuing notice under Section 143(2) of the Act and the assessee has offered in his return book profit of Rs. (-) 1,25,774/- and total income at Rs. (-) 23,27,909/-. After making the detailed inquiry, the Assessing Officer has accepted the return of income filed by the petitioner Company and a detailed order came to be passed on 3.5.2010. 3. It is also the case of the petitioner that even despite the full discloser by the petitioner and despite the scrutiny assessment done at length, the respondent authority has issued notice under Section 148 of the Act on 8.7.2013 for reassessing the income of the petitioner by assuming jurisdiction for the year 2009-10 on the premise that income has escaped assessment. The petitioner, upon receipt of the notice on 17.1.2014, requested the respondent authority to treat the original return of income as the return of income in response to the above notice and requested the authority to supply the reasons which are recorded for the purpose of issuance of notice. Vide letter dated 13.2.2014, the respondent authority has assigned and supplied the reasons which are recorded for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 2009-10. 4. Upon receipt of the same, the petitioner Company by way of their letters dated 15.5.2014 and 20.5.2014, filed the objections against notice for reopening of assessment proceedings which are sought to be initiated. Vide letter dated 13.2.2014, the respondent authority has assigned and supplied the reasons which are recorded for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 2009-10. 4. Upon receipt of the same, the petitioner Company by way of their letters dated 15.5.2014 and 20.5.2014, filed the objections against notice for reopening of assessment proceedings which are sought to be initiated. However, without looking at the same, it is the case of the petitioner that said objections came to be rejected vide order dated 22.5.2014 and it is in the background of these facts, the present petition is brought before this Court for challenging the legality and validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. 5. Mr. H.V. Vora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended before the Court that the scrutiny assessment has already been undertaken in view of Section 143(3) of the Act and any inquiry which is thereafter to be made by the Assessing Officer would tantamount to a change of opinion. Learned counsel has also submitted that a mere change of opinion would not permit the authority to reopen the assessment which has already become final. It was further contended that it is settled position of law that even on the basis of audit objections also, reassessment is impermissible. Learned counsel also submitted that merely on the basis of audit query and report, the assessment which has become final may not be permitted to be reopened. It was also pointed out that the issue pertaining to depreciation which has been dealt with by the scrutiny assessment authority as well and the reasons which are assigned and supplied to the petitioner are not legally tenable. Learned counsel also submitted that the claim for depreciation has already been considered by the Assessing Officer at the relevant point of time and therefore, no such review of the said exercise be allowed to be undertaken under the guise of opening of assessment. Hence, in this context by contending this, learned counsel for the petitioner requested the Court to set aside the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. 6. To oppose the petition, Mrs. Hence, in this context by contending this, learned counsel for the petitioner requested the Court to set aside the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. 6. To oppose the petition, Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned counsel submitted on behalf of the revenue that the notice which has been issued is within a period of 4 years from the relevant assessment year and therefore, it is permissible for the Authority to reopen the assessment. It was also contended by learned counsel for revenue that the assessee has claimed the depreciation of assets to the extent of Rs. 23.16 lacs which came to be allowed by the Assessing Officer at the relevant point of time. However, subsequently, it has been noticed upon perusal of the relevant papers that such claim is legally not tenable and wrongly been claimed and therefore, these facts unearthed from the record Hence, it is always open for the Authority to reopen the assessment. Learned counsel submitted that as per Section 32(1) of the Act, the depreciation is allowable in respect of block of assets at such percentage on written down value thereof as may be prescribed only when such assets (tangible or intangible) are acquired on or after 1.4.1988 and therefore, assets are owned and used partly or wholly for the purpose of business or profession, depreciation cannot be claimed and thereby, it has been contended that the Unit at Ankleshwar of the petitioner Company was closed during the financial year, no assets were used for the purpose of business during the relevant year and also ownership of the assets were not with the assessee as financial institution was under the control of possession of the assessee and therefore, it has been contended that depreciation has wrongly been claimed and that the Assessing Authority at the relevant point of time has wrongly allowed the same. Therefore, in this set of circumstance, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the notice for reopening of reassessment is not to be interfered with. 7. Therefore, in this set of circumstance, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the notice for reopening of reassessment is not to be interfered with. 7. Learned counsel for the revenue also contended that the Assessing Officer has issued the notice not on the basis of audit objection only but, on subsequently finding out the fact as stated above which has necessitated authority to reopen the assessment and therefore, upon due application of mind and giving subjective satisfaction, a notice came to be issued which may not be interfered with, more particularly when the same is issued within a period of 4 years. It was also contended by learned counsel for the revenue that interpretation assigned by the Assessing Officer to the issue of depreciation is not permissible nor in consonance with the provisions of law and therefore, on the basis of such erroneous interpretation assigned by the Assessing Officer, the Court may not restrain the respondent authority to proceed further in furtherance of the notice issued upon the petitioner. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, before adverting to the contentions raised before us, we may deem it proper to consider first of all the reasons which are recorded and supplied to the petitioner, which are reproduced hereunder: "In this case the assessee had e-filed its return on 25.9.2009 declaring loss of Rs. 23,27,909/-. This case was selected for scrutiny and assessment u/s. 143(3) was finalized on 29.11.2011 accepting the returned loss. The assessee had claimed depreciation on assets of Rs. 23.16 lakhs in its computation of income, which was allowed by the assessing officer. The assessee had manufacturing activities at Ankleshwar unit and mainly trading unit at Ahmedabad. Now it has come to the notice that the assessee vide submission dated 24.10.2011 stated that manufacturing activities at Ankleshwar unit was closed during the concerned period. Further in the Annual Report for F.Y. 2008-09, the Director had mentioned that said unit was closed because of legal disputes and the possession of the unit lies with the financial institution with whom mortgage had been created. It is, therefore, clear that since the manufacturing activities were conducted by the unit at Ankleshwar, major portion of depreciation claimed pertained to that unit. However, during this assessment year this unit was closed. It is, therefore, clear that since the manufacturing activities were conducted by the unit at Ankleshwar, major portion of depreciation claimed pertained to that unit. However, during this assessment year this unit was closed. As per Section 32(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, depreciation is allowable to the assessee in respect of block of assets at such percentage on written down value thereof as may be prescribed only when such assets (tangible or intangible) acquired or after 1.4.1998 and the assets are owned, wholly or partly, by the assessee and used for the purpose of the business or profession. In this case, since the unit at Ankleshwar was closed, the depreciation has been allowed wrongly during the assessment, as the assets were not used for the purpose of business during the year. The claim of the assessee in this respect should have been disallowed and added back to the total income. But not doing so had resulted in excess allowance of loss of Rs. 23.16 lakh with potential tax effect of Rs. 7.16 lakh. In order to rectify the above mistake, it is necessary to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2009-10 by issue of notice under Section 148 of the I.T. Act." 9. In the background of aforesaid facts and contentions, following facts are emerging on record (i) that the claim with respect to the allowance of the depreciation considered by the Assessing Authority at the scrutiny assessment appears to be justified in view of the fact that the issue pertaining to this has been gone into in detail and for the purpose of that, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the relevant queries which have been put by the Authority which are cogently explained. The query pertaining to this is reflecting at Pg. The query pertaining to this is reflecting at Pg. 36 of the compilation in which the communication dated 26.8.2011 written by the respondent authority to the petitioner and in said communication in Clause-3, a specific query was put upon the petitioner to explain and pertaining to the very same amount which has been claimed by the petitioner by way of depreciation, this query, which has been put up, appears to have been replied by the petitioner vide communication dated 24.10.2011 wherein also, it has been clarified by the petitioner that the petitioner Company has not claimed depreciation of his plant and machinery of Ankleshwar unit due to closure of the unit and there was no production activity during the year. However, under the Income-Tax Act, depreciation has been claimed with respect to concept of Block of Assets and depreciation on the entire assets of the Company has been claimed. The assessment order which has been passed in exercise of powers under Section 143 of the Act (Pg. 38 and 39) of the compilation, this very issue has been dealt with in Para. 3 of the said order dated 29.1.2011, which reads, thus; "The assessee is a manufacturer and trader of chemicals. The plant is located at Ankleshwar where manufacturing activity is carried on. However, during the year, there is no manufacturing activity carried out on account of the reason that the factory was closed. On the income side, only closing stock of Rs. 13.63 lakh and other income of Rs. 1125 is shown. Trading activity at Ahmedabad unit derived income from such activity amounting to Rs. 4,44,601/- (PBT), on total sales of Rs. 85.92 lakhs (previous year Rs. 1.43 crore). The combined P & L Account shows PBT at (-) Rs. 36,855/-. The net loss Rs. 1,37,074/- us shown after charging depreciation and FET. The business loss shown is including the depreciation claimed at Ankleshwar unit amounting to Rs. 23,16,154/-." 10. From the aforesaid, it is clearly appearing that the claim which has been submitted by the petitioner has been thoroughly gone through on earlier occasion in scrutiny assessment which has become final and therefore, it is not open on the part of respondent authority to give a fresh look to the said issue which has already been examined. 23,16,154/-." 10. From the aforesaid, it is clearly appearing that the claim which has been submitted by the petitioner has been thoroughly gone through on earlier occasion in scrutiny assessment which has become final and therefore, it is not open on the part of respondent authority to give a fresh look to the said issue which has already been examined. It is settled position of law that for the purpose of re-verification or for the purpose of re-consideration of the issue which has already become final and examined can never be allowed to be reopened in exercise of powers under Section 148 of the Act and therefore, this attempt appears to have been made by the respondent authority by issuing the notice under Section 148 of the Act, we are of the opinion that same may not be permitted. In furtherance of this, it is also revealed from the record that this issue has already been gone into and it appears that the authority is trying to adopt a different view by interpreting Section 32(1) in the different context and therefore, it appears that the reassessment is attempted to be on the basis of change of opinion. There are series of decisions of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein, it has been propounded that the reassessment or reopening of assessment is impermissible on the basis of change of opinion. There is another material aspect of the matter is that it is not the case of respondent authority that petitioner has not truly and fully declared all the materials. On the contrary, every aspect pertaining to. the claim of depreciation has been answered cogently by the petitioner and has disclosed full and true particulars as and when demanded and therefore, since there is no such circumstance available on record, it is impermissible on the part of respondent authority to reopen the assessment which has already become final. 11. In view of above and in view of facts and circumstances which have already been considered by this Court, it is found by the Court that issuance of notice impugned in the petition is impermissible and therefore, same is hereby quashed and set aside. Petition is allowed to the above extent. Rule is made absolute.