ORDER Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J. 1. Petitioner has challenged the notice dated 18.11.2014 as at Annexure-A to the petition issued by the respondent-Assessing Officer seeking to reopen the assessment of the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2008-09. Brief facts are as under: 2. The petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act. The petitioner filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2008-09 on 30.09.2008 declaring total income of Rs. 1.76 crore (rounded off). The assessment was taken in scrutiny. Assessment was framed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) on 02.02.2012. It is this assessment which the Assessing Officer seeks to reopen for which the impugned notice dated 18.11.2014 came to be issued. The petitioner was supplied with the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for issuing such notice, relevant portion of which reads as under: "In this case, the return of income for the A.Y. 2008-09 declaring income of Rs. 1,76,295/- was filed on 30.09.2008. Assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was finalized determining the total income at Rs. 26,28,28,351/-. In the assessment order, the assessee was allowed exemption u/s. 10A of the Act amounting to Rs. 92,48,60,352/- in respect of 100% E.O.U. units at Pune (Rs. 3,84,40,044/-) and Mahape (Rs. 92,64,20,308/-). On perusal of the records, it is noticed that in the computation of income, business income computed was to the tune of Rs. 92,71,84,309/- only and accordingly, the deduction u/s. 10A was to be restricted to Rs. 92,71,84,309/- but deduction of Rs. 96,48,60,351/- was allowed after adjusting the balance of Rs. 3,76,76,042/- from the amount computed in TP order u/s. 92C of the Act which resulted in excess deduction of Rs. 3,76,76,042/-. As per section 92C(4), where an arm's length price is determined by the A.O. u/s. 92C(3), no deduction shall be allowed u/s. 10A or section 10AA or section 10B. It is also noticed in the assessment order that, the assessee was allowed exemption u/s. 10A of the Act amounting to Rs. 92,48,60,352/- in respect of 100% E.O.U. units: at Pune (Rs. 3,84,40,044/-) and Mahape (Rs. 92,64,20,308/-). As seen from the P & L account for the year ending on 31.03.2008 that the assessee has incurred an amount of Rs. 474.41 lakh towards communication charges and Rs. 64.67 lakh towards 'insurance' aggregating to Rs. 539.08 lakh. No details of 'freight charges' incurred are available from records. 3,84,40,044/-) and Mahape (Rs. 92,64,20,308/-). As seen from the P & L account for the year ending on 31.03.2008 that the assessee has incurred an amount of Rs. 474.41 lakh towards communication charges and Rs. 64.67 lakh towards 'insurance' aggregating to Rs. 539.08 lakh. No details of 'freight charges' incurred are available from records. Unit-wise breakup of these expenses is also not available. However, based on the total turnover (Rs. 50977.42 lakh), the proportionate amount to be excluded from the 'export turnover' would be Rs. 515.14 lakh for Mahape Unit and Rs. 23.94 lakh for Pune Unit. As per the definition u/s. 10A, 'export turnover' does not include telecommunication charges, freight and insurance incurred for export of software. Accordingly, allowable deduction u/s. 10A would be Rs. 91.66 crore. Thus there was excess allowance of deduction u/s. 10A to the tune of Rs. 1,02,03,278/- (Rs. 96,48,60,352/- minus Rs. 95,46,57,074/-). Thus as per the arm's length price is determined by the A.O. u/s. 92C(3), no deduction shall be allowed u/s. 10A or section 10AA or section 10B. Further, there is wrongly allowed the deduction u/s. 10A towards Rs. 474.41 communication charges, and Rs. 64.67 lakh towards 'insurance' aggregating to Rs. 539.08 lakh which resulted excess allowance of deduction u/s. 10A of Rs. 1,02,03,278/-. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that the deduction allowed u/s.10A or section 10AA or section 10B on working of arm's length price u/s. 92C(3)to the extent of Rs. 3,76,76,042/- is income chargeable to tax and deduction allowed u/s. 10A on communication charges and insurance charges to the extent of Rs. 1,02,03,278/- is income chargeable to tax. These have been under assessed to tax on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts pertaining to the A.Y. 2008-09 and no opinion was formed in the original assessment. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case for reassessment by invoking the provisions of section 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961." 3. The petitioner raised objections to the notice for reopening, which objections came to be dismissed by the Assessing Officer by order dated 27.07.2015. 4. It can be seen from the record that the Assessing Officer had two reasons for holding the belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The petitioner raised objections to the notice for reopening, which objections came to be dismissed by the Assessing Officer by order dated 27.07.2015. 4. It can be seen from the record that the Assessing Officer had two reasons for holding the belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The first reason was that addition of Rs. 3.76 crore (rounded off) was made to the business income of the assessee applying arm's length pricing under section 92-C of the Act. In terms of sub-section (4) of section 92-C, this addition made by way of arm's length price would not qualify for deduction under section 10-A of the Act, despite which such deduction was granted by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment. The second reason was that, according to the Assessing Officer, export turn over for the purpose of exemption under section 10Awould not include telecommunication charges, freight and insurance incurred in the export of software, despite which the assessee had included the same which resulted into excess deduction being granted. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Soparkar for the petitioner pointed out that the notice in question was issued beyond the period of four years from the date of the assessment order. There was no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose truly and fully all material facts. The Assessing Officer, therefore, could not have reopened the original assessment which was framed after scrutiny. 6. With respect to the first reason recorded by the Assessing Officer, counsel contended that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any of the facts. If at all any deduction granted ignoring the statutory provisions, it was an error on the part of the Assessing Officer. With respect to the second reason, the counsel submitted that not only true and full disclosure by the petitioner of all material facts, the issue was examined by the Assessing Officer for which specific queries were raised and answers given by the petitioner and re-examination of the issue would only be in the nature of change of opinion. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel Ms. Bhatt opposed the petition contending that the Assessing Officer had recorded valid reasons. The assessee had not given break-ups of various expenditures and had thus not disclosed truly and fully all material facts. 8. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel Ms. Bhatt opposed the petition contending that the Assessing Officer had recorded valid reasons. The assessee had not given break-ups of various expenditures and had thus not disclosed truly and fully all material facts. 8. With respect to the first reason, as noted, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the additions made during the course of the original assessment by applying arm's length price u/s. 92-C of the Act would not qualify for deduction under section 10-A of the Act. Even if that be so, nowhere the Assessing Officer had recorded that excess deduction was granted to the petitioner due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all necessary material facts, a prime requirement under the provisions of section 147 of the Act which enables the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment previously framed after scrutiny beyond the period of four years of the assessment order. If at all it was an error on the part of the Assessing Officer to grant larger relief than what was justified under the legal provisions. At any rate, this would not be a ground for reopening an assessment beyond four years. There were multiple other remedies available to the revenue to exercise within the time frame provided under the statute, but to reopen an assessment beyond the period of four years of the assessment order was simply not one of them since the requirement of such income chargeable to tax having escaped assessment must be relatable to the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment. 9. Coming to the second reason, we may recall, according to the Assessing Officer, various expenditures in the form of telecommunication charges, freight and insurance could not be formed part of export turn over. If this expenditure were excluded from the computation of export turn over, deduction under section 10-A of the Act would shrink. So far there will be no difficulty. However, in the context of the notice of reopening having been issued beyond the period of four years, we had examined the record from the angle of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. In this context, our attention was drawn by counsel Mr. So far there will be no difficulty. However, in the context of the notice of reopening having been issued beyond the period of four years, we had examined the record from the angle of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. In this context, our attention was drawn by counsel Mr. Soparkar for the petitioner to the return file by the assessee which contained detailed computation of exemption under section 10-Aof the Act. It refers to the formula of exemption being equal to profit of business multiplied by export turn over divided by total turn over. A note to this computation contained the following disclosure: "Note (1) For the purpose of computing export turnover, telecommunication charges for export of computer software have not been considered as telecommunication charges. The same are fixed in nature and not incurred specifically for export of software. However, in case such expenses are reduced for the purpose of export turnover, the same would also be required to be reduced from total turnover." 10. Thus, in the return filed the assessee had pointed out to the Assessing Officer that for computing export turn over, telecommunication charges for export of computer software were not considered as telecommunication expenses. The same are fixed in nature and not incurred specifically for export of software. However, in case such expenses are reduced for the purpose of computing export turn over, the same are also to be reduced from the computation of total turn over. In other words, according to the assessee, if such charges were to be eliminated from the denominator of the ratio by which profit of business is to be multiplied for computing the exemption under section 10-A of the Act, the same would also be eliminated from the denominator. Whatever be the validity of the petitioner's such contention, surely, the petitioner cannot be stated to have not disclosed truly and fully all material facts. 11. Quite apart from this conclusion, we notice that under communication dated 26.12.2011 to the Assessing Officer, the assessee had given detailed clarification regarding the telecommunication expenses and freight and insurance charges. This note runs into nearly six pages and was written in response to the scrutiny assessment in which the Assessing Officer had raised queries. 11. Quite apart from this conclusion, we notice that under communication dated 26.12.2011 to the Assessing Officer, the assessee had given detailed clarification regarding the telecommunication expenses and freight and insurance charges. This note runs into nearly six pages and was written in response to the scrutiny assessment in which the Assessing Officer had raised queries. Thus, not only in the original return filed the assessee had made full disclosures, this issue was examined by the Assessing officer during the original assessment for which the assessee had given written explanation. Any permission now to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the question would be allowing him to change the opinion originally framed. 12. For all these reasons, the impugned notice must be invalidated. The same is quashed. Petition is allowed and disposed of.