ORDER Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J. 1. Petitioner has challenged a notice for reopening of assessment dated 30.03.2015 as at Annexure-M to the petition in following background:- 1.1 Petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. For the assessment year 2008-09, the petitioner filed return of income, which was taken in scrutiny. Assessing Officer framed assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 31.10.2010. In order to reopen this assessment, the Assessing Officer issued the impugned notice, which was thus issued after completion of four years from the end of relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer supplied the reasons for issuing such notice to the petitioner, which read as under:- "Reasons recorded for reopening u/s. 147 of the Act The assessee company, engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of jewellery, filed its return of income on 24/9/2008 declaring total income of Rs. 25,24,690/- for the A.Y. 2008-09. The assessment was finalized u/s. 143(3) on 31/12/2010 determining income at Rs. 25,27,190/-. In this case, during the assessment proceedings for the A.Y. 2010-11 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act dated 03/09/2013, the AO noted that the assessee applies the BoE rate for accounting of transactions in Foreign Currency instead of applying RBI Reference Rate. The AO replaced the BoE rate with RBI Reference Rate and rejected the claim of forex loss of Rs. 6,00,66,875/-. Further, while passing the order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act dated 03/09/2013 for the A.Y. 2009-10, IN ITS Office Note, the Assessing Officer has noted that in the A.Y. 2008-09, if purchases and forex gains/loss are recomputed at RBI reference rate, it will result in addition in income of Rs. 2,17,94,124/-. In view of this, for the year under consideration also, application of RBI Reference Rate is needed to be applied instead of BoE rate and the forex loss/gain is needed to be recomputed. The income escaped assessment is of Rs. 2,17,94,124/-. In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that income of Rs. 2,17,94,124/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. Therefore this is a fit case for issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act." 1.2 The objections raised by the petitioner to the notice for reopening came to be rejected by the Assessing Officer by an order dated 07.09.2015. Hence, the petition. 2. 2,17,94,124/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. Therefore this is a fit case for issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act." 1.2 The objections raised by the petitioner to the notice for reopening came to be rejected by the Assessing Officer by an order dated 07.09.2015. Hence, the petition. 2. Learned Counsel Shri R.K. Patel for the petitioner drew our attention to the reasons recorded and pointed out that there was only one ground on which the Assessing Officer formed belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The petitioner had, in the context of loss on account of fluctuation in foreign exchange rate, adopted the bill of entry rates declared by the Customs Department. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee should have applied the rates of foreign exchange declared by the Reserve Bank of India. This had resulted into income of Rs. 2.17 crores (rounded off) of the assessee having escaped assessment. Counsel challenged the notice on following grounds:- I. There was no failure on part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all necessary facts relevant for assessment. In fact, there was no such assertion in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for issuing the notice. In view of the decision of this Court in case of Krishna Metal Industries Vs. H.M. Algotar, reported in 225 ITR, page No. 853, the notice was invalid. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Division Bench dated 25.06.2012 in SCA No. 5498 of 2002 in case of Himson Textile Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs. N.N. Krishnan or his successor to office for the same purpose. II. The assessee had disclosed full facts before the Assessing Officer during the original scrutiny assessment. Various queries were raised. Accounts of the assessee were examined, which at various places referred to the loss on account of fluctuation in the foreign rate. The Assessing Officer, having thus scrutinized the issue, now cannot be permitted to reopen the same, that too beyond period of four years. III. Counsel lastly submitted that the issue arose on account of assessment for the assessment year 2010-11, which was being framed upon a revisional order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act, which, on the date of issuance of the notice was already set aside by the Tribunal. III. Counsel lastly submitted that the issue arose on account of assessment for the assessment year 2010-11, which was being framed upon a revisional order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act, which, on the date of issuance of the notice was already set aside by the Tribunal. When the very foundation for reopening of assessment was not in existence, the notice could not have been issued. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel Shri Nitin Mehta for the Revenue contended that there was total failure on part of the assessee to disclose true and full facts. Nowhere in the return filed or during the course of original scrutiny assessment, the assessee had disclosed that for the purpose of foreign exchange rate fluctuation, the assessee following BoE rates and not those prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India. Drawing our attention to the assessment proceedings, Counsel contended that in fat, the assertion of the assessee was to the contrary contending that the exchange rate prevailing on the date of the transaction was being followed, which would necessarily mean the rate prescribed by Reserve Bank of India and not by the Customs authorities. 4. Having thus heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused documents on record, we must remember that the impugned notice has been issued beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Apart from the belief of the Assessing Officer that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, additional requirement to be fulfilled in such a case would be that such escapement of income was due to the failure on part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts for such assessment. In this context, we do not even find any assertion in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer of any failure on part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. Quite apart from no such averment in the reasons recorded, we fail to see how the Assessing Officer would demonstrate satisfaction of such requirements. We have perused the documents on record, which also contain the assessment records. The assessee made multiple claims in the course of business of import and export and had also claimed loss on account of foreign exchange rate fluctuation. During the scrutiny, these issues came up for consideration by the Assessing Officer. We have perused the documents on record, which also contain the assessment records. The assessee made multiple claims in the course of business of import and export and had also claimed loss on account of foreign exchange rate fluctuation. During the scrutiny, these issues came up for consideration by the Assessing Officer. In written explanation, the assessee explained the detailed methodology and working out of such income and loss. At no stage, the Assessing Officer went beyond as to ascertain whether the rate applied by the assessee being those declared by the Customs authorities would form legitimate basis for computation of loss or income on account of foreign rate exchange fluctuation. If the Assessing Officer had any queries, had any doubt about the rate applied by the assessee, it was well within his authority to question the assessee on this count. However, beyond the period of four years, the Assessing Officer could not simply press a revisional order for another assessment year in service and seek to reopen the assessment on the ground that the assessee ought to have applied rate declared by the RBI and thus, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, that too due to failure on part of the assessee to disclose truly and full all material facts. 5. Counsel for the Revenue contended that the assessee had applied the foreign exchange conversion rate inconsistently. Even if that was so, this does not form part of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. As per the settled law, the Revenue authorities would pin-down to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment to support the notice of reopening. Any extraneous reasons not recorded by the Assessing Officer cannot form the basis. 6. Under the circumstances, impugned notice dated 30.03.2015 is quashed. The petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.