JUDGMENT : Harsha Devani, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 30th March, 2015 issued by the respondent under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") seeking to reopen the assessment of the petitioner for assessment year 2008-09. 2. The petitioner submitted a return of income for assessment year 2008-09 on 31st July, 2008 together with the Computation of Income, Balance Sheet, Income and Expenditure Account and Capital Account of the partners. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 15th March, 2013 seeking to reopen the assessment of the assessee on the ground that the assessee had deposited huge cash to the tune of Rs. 4,70,11,830/- for the period from 1st April, 2003 to 25th April, 2008 in its accounts maintained with the ICICI bank. With a view to verifying the genuineness of the sources of such huge transactions, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment. Pursuant thereto, the Assessing Officer framed assessment under section 143 (3) read with section 147 of the Act on 24th March, 2014 determining the total income as per the return at Rs. 3,41,930/-. Thereafter, by the impugned notice dated 30th March, 2015, the respondent seeks to once again reopen the assessment of the petitioner for assessment year 2008-09. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 3. Mr. J.P. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order by submitting that the main ground for reopening of the assessment is huge cash deposits in the bank accounts. It was submitted that this aspect has duly been explained by the petitioner in the earlier assessment and the then Assessing Officer had in depth verified the same with reference to the cash book and supporting evidences and confirmations of a few customers. After being satisfied that the petitioner was working as a Shroff and the cash deposited in the bank accounts belonged to customers who obtained cheques/drafts in lieu of such cash, the assessment was completed by the then Assessing Officer without making any variations in the returned income of the petitioner. It was submitted that, therefore, this is a patent case of reopening on the basis of change of opinion on the same set of facts. It was submitted that, therefore, this is a patent case of reopening on the basis of change of opinion on the same set of facts. It was contended that in the present case, the impugned notice has been issued beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and hence, in view of the proviso to section 147 of the Act, there must be some failure on the part of the petitioner to fully and truly disclose all material facts. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner had duly disclosed the receipt of cash from customers and its deposit in bank accounts in its books of accounts and the Assessing Officer had accepted the same after due verification thereof, it cannot be alleged that the petitioner has not fully and truly disclosed all material facts necessary for its assessment for the assessment year under consideration. It was submitted that in fact, the respondent Assessing Officer appears to have recorded the reasons without verifying the records of the earlier assessment. 3.1 Referring to the reasons recorded, it was pointed out that these reasons and the earlier reasons are virtually the same. It was further pointed out that the information received from the ADIT (Inv)-II, Rajkot is that there were total cash deposits of Rs. 96,85,63,426/- in respect of the year under consideration. According to the learned counsel, this is a fact which was already within the knowledge of the Assessing Officer. Thus, in fact, no information had been received by the Assessing Officer which could be said to be tangible material for the purpose of reopening the assessment. Therefore, the second reassessment is virtually on the same ground. 3.2 Referring to the proceedings of the earlier round of reassessment, it was pointed out that initially the assessment was sought to be reopened on the ground that the assessee had deposited huge cash and that the genuineness of the source of such huge transactions was required to be verified. It was submitted that all the cash deposits are recorded in the books of account and the very information was there with them at the time of the first assessment, which they reopened on the basis of the cash deposits in the ICICI account and now on the basis of the investigation made by the ADIT, the assessment is sought to be reopened again. It was submitted that the petitioner has disclosed the names of the beneficiaries in the original assessment and that the respondent Assessing Officer without verifying the record of the earlier assessment has erroneously contended that the names of the beneficiaries were not disclosed. It was pointed out that during the course of the first reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had issued notices under section 142(1) of the Act and had called upon the petitioner to inter alia furnish copies of bank statements of bank accounts maintained by it. That the petitioner had also been called upon to explain the source of cash deposits with complete supporting evidence in respect of total cash of Rs. 4,70,11,830/- in its bank account with ICICI bank and was also called upon to produce complete books of accounts and vouchers for verification. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer examined the cash deposits and that the assessee has complied with everything in the first reassessment. It was urged that all the facts were there in its books of account and hence, it cannot be said that there is any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment. It was submitted that apart from the fact that the impugned notice has been issued beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year without there being any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts, even otherwise, the impugned notice is based upon a mere change of opinion and hence, the assumption of jurisdiction on the part of the Assessing Officer is without any authority of law. It was, accordingly, urged that the impugned notice deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Vehemently opposing the petition, Mr. M.R. Bhatt, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent, referred to the reasons recorded for the purpose of reopening the assessment on the earlier occasion to submit that the information which came to the knowledge of the Department was as regards cash deposits of Rs. 4.70 crores and the source of such cash was examined and the assessment order dated 24th March, 2014 came to be passed. 4.70 crores and the source of such cash was examined and the assessment order dated 24th March, 2014 came to be passed. It was pointed out that the survey under section 133A of the Act came to be carried out on 18th September, 2014 which is subsequent to the first reassessment order. During the course of survey, the ADIT found that the cash deposits are not of Rs. 4.70 crores but Rs. 96.85 crores. It was submitted that though requested, the assessee did not choose to disclose the names of the beneficiaries. Thus, the total amount of cash deposits discovered during the first reassessment and the present reopening are different. In the earlier proceedings under section 147 of the Act, no inquiry had been made as regards the source of cash of Rs. 96 crores and hence, the contention that the issue was adjudicated in the earlier round is not a correct statement. It was submitted that new material was found in the survey carried out under section 133A of the Act, which was not the subject matter of the earlier section 147 proceedings. 4.1 It was submitted that the survey came to be carried out on 18th September, 2014, during the course of which, various statements came to be recorded. Referring to the provisions of section 133A of the Act, it was pointed out that a survey can be carried out by an income tax authority as contemplated under section 116 of the Act and the information may be used in any proceeding. Thus, the power of survey is conferred on an income tax officer for use in any proceedings under the Act including section 147 thereof and hence, the information received from the ADIT (Inv) during the course of survey under section 133A can be used for the purpose of reopening assessment under section 147 of the Act. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. P. Mohanakala, (2007) 291 ITR 278, to submit that the onus is on the assessee to establish the genuineness of a transaction. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. P. Mohanakala, (2007) 291 ITR 278, to submit that the onus is on the assessee to establish the genuineness of a transaction. Referring to the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, it was pointed out that the second part of the reasons recorded relates to section 68 of the Act namely, that the beneficiaries of the cash deposits having not been disclosed by the assessee, the same are required to be added as the unaccounted income of the assessee which is chargeable to tax. It was submitted that in the second survey, there was an onus on the petitioner under section 68 of the Act to explain the cash deposits and the petitioner having failed to do so, the same is required to be added under section 68 of the Act. Thus, there is a live link between the information and the formation of belief. 4.2 Mr. Bhatt further submitted that during the course of survey, the investigating agency had found that the petitioner is not maintaining complete records and that the petitioner has not disclosed the names of the beneficiaries of the cash transactions. It was submitted that in terms of the report submitted by the investigating agency, the petitioner had connection with Calcutta based parties; it did not disclose the names of the beneficiaries and that on the basis of the investigation report, the Assessing Officer has found that the petitioner was involved in money laundering and has not explained the names of the beneficiaries. It was submitted that the petitioner by not reflecting the addresses and the PAN numbers of the parties in its books of account, had not produced the primary facts on the record for the purpose of assessment. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-Tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta, 1961 41 ITR 191, for the proposition that the words used in the provision are "omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of that year" which postulates a duty on every assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. It was held that what facts are material and necessary for assessment will differ from case to case. It was held that what facts are material and necessary for assessment will differ from case to case. In every assessment proceeding, the assessing authority will, for the purpose of computing or determining the proper tax due from an assessee, require to know all the facts which help him in coming to the correct conclusion. It was further held that there can be no doubt that the duty of disclosing all the primary facts relevant to the decision on the question before the assessing authority lies on the assessee. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it was submitted that the petitioner failed to make a full and true disclosure as regards the addresses and the permanent account numbers of the parties. Therefore, the primary facts were not brought on record. Under the circumstances, the contention that the assessee had fully and truly disclosed all material facts does not merit acceptance. 4.3 Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kantamani Venkatanarayana & Sons v. First Additional Income-Tax Officer, Rajahmundhry, (1966) 62 ITR 35, wherein the court has held that the assessee does not discharge his duty to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of the relevant year by merely producing the books of account and other evidence. He has to bring to notice of the Income Tax Officer particular items in the books of account or portions of documents which are relevant. Even if it is assumed that, from the books produced, the Income Tax Officer, if he had been circumspect, could have found out the truth, he is not on that account precluded from exercising the power to assess the income which has escaped assessment. It was submitted that in the facts of the present case, merely because the cash book was already on record, would not mean that the Income Tax Officer is not precluded from exercising the power to assess the income which has escaped assessment. It was submitted that it is settled legal position that if there are, in fact, some reasonable grounds for the Income Tax Officer to believe that there has been any non-disclosure as regards any fact which would have a bearing on the question of under assessment, that would be sufficient to give jurisdiction to the Assessing Officer to issue notice under section 148. Whether these grounds are adequate or not is not a matter for the court to infer. 4.4 Reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Malegaon Electricity Co. P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay, (1970) 78 ITR 466, wherein the court had recorded that from the cryptic statement of the Income Tax Officer in the original assessment order that "no adjustment is necessary", the Tribunal was not justified in drawing the inference that the Income Tax Officer had considered all the relevant facts. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indo-Aden Salt Mfg. & Trading Co. P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay, (1986) 159 ITR 624, for the proposition that it is well-settled that the obligation of the assessee is to disclose only primary facts and not inferential facts. If some material for the assessment lay embedded in the evidence which the revenue could have uncovered but did not, then it is the duty of the assessee to bring it to the notice of the assessing authority. The assessee knows all the material and relevant facts - the assessing authority might not. In respect of the failure to disclose, the omission to disclose may be deliberate or inadvertent. That is immaterial. But if there is omission to disclose material facts, then, subject to other conditions, jurisdiction to reopen is attracted. According to the learned counsel, in the facts of the present case, the primary facts are the identities of the beneficiaries. 4.5 Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Income Tax Officer v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. Pvt. Ltd., (1996) 217 ITR 597, wherein the court held that at the stage of issuance of the notice, the only question is whether there was relevant material on which a reasonable person could have formed the requisite belief. The court held that it cannot be said that the letter of the Chief Mining Officer could not have constituted the basis for forming such a belief and hence, it could not be said that the issuance of notice was invalid. The court held that it cannot be said that the letter of the Chief Mining Officer could not have constituted the basis for forming such a belief and hence, it could not be said that the issuance of notice was invalid. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sri Krishna Pvt. Ltd. v. Income-Tax Officer and Others, (1996) 221 ITR 538, for the proposition that the enquiry at the stage of finding out whether the reassessment notice is valid is only to see whether there are reasonable grounds for the Income Tax Officer to believe and not whether the omission/failure and the escapement of income is established. It was submitted that once the Assessing Officer holds that there is non-disclosure, the same amounts to a finding of fact. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. Income-Tax Officer, (1999) 236 ITR 34, wherein the court observed that it did not have to give a final decision as to whether there is suppression of material facts by the assessee or not. The court has only to see whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the Department could reopen the case. Sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. 4.6 Reliance was also placed upon the decision of this court in the case of Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2012) 346 ITR 228, wherein the court had observed that from the return filed and the documents annexed with the return, nowhere it could be ascertained as to what was the holding of the assessee company in terms of voting power in SDBL. If, upon further inquiry by the Assessing Officer, such details could be gathered and the nature of payment received by the petitioner from SDBL could be ascertained, to find out whether the same should be treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) or not, the same would not satisfy the requirement of fully and truly disclosing all material facts necessary for assessment, particularly viewed from the expression given in Explanation (1) to section 147 of the Act, which provides inter alia, that production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. It was submitted that the above decision would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of this court in the case of Yogendrakumar Gupta v. Income-Tax Officer, (2014) 366 ITR 186 (Guj.), for the proposition that where the Assessing Officer forms his belief on the basis of subsequent new and specific information that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on account of omission on the part of the assessee to make full and true disclosure of primary facts, he may start reassessment proceedings. Since the belief is that of the Income Tax Officer, the sufficiency of reasons for forming the belief is not for the court to judge but it is open to an assessee to establish that there exists no belief or that the belief is not at all a bonafide one or based on vague, irrelevant or non-specific information. To that limited extent, the court may look at the view taken by the Income Tax Officer and examine whether any material is available on record from which the requisite belief could be formed by the Assessing Officer and whether that material has any rational connection or live link with the requisite belief. It is also immaterial that at the time of making the original assessment, the Assessing Officer could have found by further inquiry or further investigation that the transaction was genuine. It was submitted that in the facts of the present case, the fresh material is in the form of the investigation report which the Assessing Officer bonafide believed to be correct and accordingly assumed jurisdiction. It was submitted that in the facts of the present case, the fresh material is in the form of the investigation report which the Assessing Officer bonafide believed to be correct and accordingly assumed jurisdiction. 4.7 Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax and Another, (2012) 340 ITR 53 (Delhi), for the proposition that whether or not there is a failure or omission to disclose fully and truly all material facts, is essentially a question of fact. The term "failure" on the part of the assessee is not restricted only to the income-tax return and the columns of the income-tax return or the tax audit report. This is the first stage. The expression "failure to fully and truly disclose material facts" also relates to the stage of assessment proceedings, the second stage. There can be omission and failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts during the course of assessment proceedings. This can happen when the assessee does not disclose or furnish to the Assessing Officer complete and correct information and details. The burden is on the assessee to make full and true disclosure. The explanation to section 147 stipulates that mere production of books of account or other evidence is not sufficient. Merely because material lies embedded in material or evidence, which the Assessing Officer could have uncovered but did not uncover is not a good ground to deny and strike down the notice of reassessment. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Remfry and Sagar v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (2013) 351 ITR 75 (Delhi), for the proposition that it is not necessary for the Assessing Officer to list the documents that were required to be furnished, but not actually furnished by the assessee in the course of the original assessment proceedings. The primary condition for reopening assessment is that there should be reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In the facts of the said case the court held that the claim for deduction of licence fee payment undeniably was based on the terms and conditions of licence agreement. The primary condition for reopening assessment is that there should be reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In the facts of the said case the court held that the claim for deduction of licence fee payment undeniably was based on the terms and conditions of licence agreement. Neither the partnership deed nor the letter in question could be considered to be primary facts on the basis of which an inference as to the allowability of the licence fee payment could be properly drawn by the Assessing Officer. The court referred to other particulars provided and observed that furnishing of such particulars could in no way be considered as furnishing the primary facts in relation to the allowability of payment of licence fee which could be adjudicated upon only if the terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement were made known to the Assessing Officer. 4.8 Reverting to the facts of the present case, Mr. Bhatt submitted that merely furnishing the names of the parties cannot be considered as furnishing the primary facts necessary for assessment, without the addresses and the PAN numbers of such parties being provided. It was submitted that in the light of the decision of this court in the case of Yogendrakumar Gupta v. Income Tax Officer (supra), when the Assessing Officer has acted on the basis of tangible material in the form of survey report, which he bona fide believes to be true, and the formation of bona fide belief is not challenged by the assessee, the challenge under section 147 of the Act must fail. It was submitted that as to what facts are material would depend upon the facts of each case. For the purpose of assessment, all the requirements of section 68 of the Act are required to be satisfied and hence, the proviso to section 147 of the Act would apply and the onus is on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the transaction. The Assessing Officer is, therefore, wholly justified in exercising powers under section 147 of the Act by issuing the impugned notice and that the petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed. 5. In rejoinder, Mr. The Assessing Officer is, therefore, wholly justified in exercising powers under section 147 of the Act by issuing the impugned notice and that the petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed. 5. In rejoinder, Mr. J.P. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in the present case, the assessment is sought to be reopened on the basis of a survey under section 133A of the Act whereas section 68 does not apply in case of survey but applies in case of an assessment. It was submitted that in any case, the address and the PAN number of a party is not a primary fact. It was submitted that primary facts are those that are necessary for the Income Tax Officer to decide whether an income is chargeable to tax. It was submitted that if called upon, the assessee would have discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of the transaction; however, the discharging of the onus has to be at the instance of the Assessing Officer alone. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer during the course of the assessment proceedings did not call upon the petitioner to discharge such onus and hence, there is no omission on the part of the petitioner. Reliance was placed upon the decision of this court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat-III v. Vinaychand Harilal, (1979) 120 ITR 752, to point out the scope of proceedings under section 68 of the Act. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of this court in the case of Ahmedabad Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Union of India and Another, (1974) 95 ITR 639, to submit that while examining as to whether any income is undisclosed income under section 68 of the Act, the focus is on the nature and the source of income and the addresses and PAN numbers are relevant only when the Assessing Officer further wants to check up and examine the depositors. It was submitted that this is a patent case of absence of any omission on the part of the petitioner and hence, in the absence of any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts relevant for the assessment, the assumption of jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer is without any authority of law. 6. 6. In the present case, the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued on 30th March, 2015 in relation to assessment year 2008-09 which is clearly beyond a period of four years from the end of the assessment year. Under the circumstances, in view of the proviso to section 147 of the Act, for the purpose of reopening the assessment, the Assessing Officer shall have to record twin satisfaction: firstly, that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; and secondly, that such escapement is by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment. Both the reasons have to co-exist. 7. For the purpose of testing the validity of the impugned notice, the court would be required to examine as to whether there is any material available on the record on the basis of which the requisite belief could be formed by the Assessing Officer and further whether such material had any rational connection or live link with the formation of the requisite opinion. Secondly, as to whether such income has escaped assessment on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. 8. Section 139 of the Act places an obligation upon every person to furnish voluntarily a return of his total income if such income during the previous year exceeds the minimum amount which is not chargeable to income tax. The obligation so placed involves a further obligation to disclose all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year fully and truly. If at any subsequent point of time, it is found that either on account of an omission on the part of the assessee to file the return or on account of his omission to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that year, the Assessing Officer is entitled to reopen the assessment in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Act. The Assessing Officer can issue the notice under section 148 of the Act proposing to reopen the assessment beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year only when he has reason to believe that on account of either the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to file the return, or on account of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year, income has escaped assessment. The existence of the reason to believe is supposed to be a check, a limitation, upon his power to reopen the assessment. The power conferred upon the Income Tax Officer by sections 147 and 148 is thus not an unbridled one. It is hedged in with several safeguards conceived in the interest of eliminating room for abuse of this power by the Assessing Officers. The idea was to save the assessees from harassment resulting from mechanical reopening of assessment but this protection avails only those assessees who disclose all material facts fully and truly. (See Sri Krishna Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, (1996) 221 ITR 538). 9. Adverting to the facts of the present case, as per the reasons recorded, a survey was carried out on the petitioner on 18th September, 2014 and it was found that the assessee had issued cheques, demand drafts to many parties in return for cash deposits made in its bank accounts and these cash deposits had been inventoried as "Annexure BF". As per the data available, the ADIT had worked out the total cash deposit of Rs. 2998.56 crore from financial year 2007-08 till the date of the survey, that is, 18th September, 2014 out of which Rs. 96,85,63,426/- related to assessment year 2008-09. It is further recorded that the beneficiaries of these cash deposits have not been disclosed by the assessee despite being given numerous opportunities to explain the same, therefore, the cash deposits made in the bank account of the assessee need to be added as unaccounted income which is chargeable to tax and has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 10. It may be noted that in this case, initially the return of income as filed had been accepted by the Assessing Officer. 10. It may be noted that in this case, initially the return of income as filed had been accepted by the Assessing Officer. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened by issuing a notice dated 15th March, 2013 under section 148 of the Act. The assessment was sought to be reopened after recording the following reasons:-- "The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 on 31-07-2008 declaring total income of Rs. 341930/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. No regular assessment was made in this case. Subsequently, the department came to know that the assessee deposited huge cash to the tune of Rs. 4,70,11,830/- during the period from 01-04-2003 to 25-4-2008 in its accounts maintained with the ICICI Bank. The genuineness of the sources of such huge cash transactions requires to be verified. Since no regular assessment was made in the instant case, I have reasons to believe that the genuineness of sources of cash deposits of Rs. 4,70,11,830/- and its taxability has escaped the assessment. Therefore, I propose to assess the income of the assessee for A.Y. 2008-09 as per the provisions of section 147 of the income tax Act subject to the provisions of section 148 to 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961." In those proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued a notice dated 27th September, 2013 under section 142(1) of the Act inter alia calling upon the petitioner to furnish copies of bank statements of all the bank accounts maintained by it with narration of debit and credit entries exceeding Rs. 50,000/-. The petitioner was also called upon to furnish the complete accounts of all FDRs shown in the balance sheet. It was further stated that the petitioner had deposited total cash of Rs. 4,70,11,830/- in its bank account with ICICI bank during the period from 1st April, 2003 to 25th April, 2008 and the petitioner was called upon to explain the sources of these cash deposits with complete supporting evidences. The petitioner was also called upon to produce complete books of accounts and vouchers for verification. It appears that thereafter, the Assessing Officer had also called upon the petitioner to clarify the source of cash deposited in its Kotak Mahindra Bank account in response to which the petitioner submitted a letter dated 18th March, 2014 inter alia stating thus:-- "(1) Sir we are regularly assessed to tax since long. It appears that thereafter, the Assessing Officer had also called upon the petitioner to clarify the source of cash deposited in its Kotak Mahindra Bank account in response to which the petitioner submitted a letter dated 18th March, 2014 inter alia stating thus:-- "(1) Sir we are regularly assessed to tax since long. We have filed our Return of Income for the year under consideration with Income tax officer ward-2(1) Rajkot with declaring of Total Income Rs. 105657/-. Our firm's nature of business is cheque discounting, issuing cheque, demand draft issuing etc. we are doing business of shroff with name of M/s. Sidhnath Enterprise 8-Chokhawala chambers, Danapith Rajkot. In our shroff business we have received cash from various parties (Our customers) of Rajkot and various other cities. After receiving cash from our clients we are issuing demand draft or cheques as per need of clients. For this facilities we are charging of Rs. 50 per lakh for issuing cheque and Rs. 100 per lakh for issuing demand draft as our Commission. We are also doing cheque discounting work for our clients. In this case we have given cash against cheque and for that we are also charging Rs. 50 per lakh as our commission. The above all commission income was shown by us in our profit & Loss account. We are regularly maintained our books of accounts like cash book, ledger, bank book, vouchers etc. Copies of accounts were already filed before your good self in our last submission. (2) Sir further we have like to clarify that we have license of shroff from Gujarat Government. We have also having service Tax number from central Excise department regarding our shroff activities. Copies of above both certificates are enclosed herewith for your record. (3) Regarding cash deposited in Kotak Mahindra Bank accounts we would like to clarify that the above cash was received by us from our various customers. This all customers are pertain to Soni bazaar, marketing yard, Danapith, Aji Industrial area, and various places of Rajkot. We have received cash from our customers and against this issuing cheque or demand draft as per his need. This all customers are pertain to Soni bazaar, marketing yard, Danapith, Aji Industrial area, and various places of Rajkot. We have received cash from our customers and against this issuing cheque or demand draft as per his need. For the clarification of cash deposits we are enclosing herewith copy of bank statement and also copy of certain pages of our cash book, from this your good self verify that we have received cash from our various clients and it is deposited in our bank accounts as per need. We have mention cash book pages number on bank statement for your verification. We are enclosing some vouchers of cheque discounting demand draft issuing for verification of your good self. (4) Hence our cash deposited in bank accounts are properly account for and commission income of above transaction properly shown in our books of accounts. As we are doing business of shroff cash deposits in our bank accounts is part of our business." 11. The Assessing Officer thereafter framed assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act on 24th March, 2014 recording that a notice under section 142(1) had been issued on 27th September, 2013, 5th November, 2013, 4th December, 2013, 6th January, 2014 and 7th March, 2014 and that in response to the notice of hearing the advocate duly authorised had attended from time to time and filed written submissions. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee is engaged in the shroff business, wherein it discounts cheques, issues demand drafts, etc. Assessee had produced its cash book, wherein cash receipts were recorded, which were utilised to purchase demand drafts for parties who gave cash. Various issues were discussed at length during the assessment proceedings. After verification, the Assessing Officer determined the total income in terms of the returned income at Rs. 3,41,930/-. 12. Thus, the Assessing Officer had, on the previous occasion, reopened the assessment to verify the genuineness of the cash transactions. While in the reasons recorded reference is made to cash deposits of Rs. 4,70,11,830/- during the period 1st April, 2003 to 25th April, 2008, in the petitioner's accounts maintained with the ICICI bank, during the course of assessment, details of two other bank accounts were called and specific queries were made in respect of certain bank accounts like Kotak Mahindra Bank. 4,70,11,830/- during the period 1st April, 2003 to 25th April, 2008, in the petitioner's accounts maintained with the ICICI bank, during the course of assessment, details of two other bank accounts were called and specific queries were made in respect of certain bank accounts like Kotak Mahindra Bank. The Assessing Officer had called for all the bank statements and had examined the cash book wherein the cash receipts had been recorded. Out of the cash receipts, the Assessing Officer called for clarifications in respect of certain receipts and was satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee and did not deem it fit to make any addition. 13. Thereafter, a survey came to be carried out under section 133A of the Act. The record of the case reveals that during the course of survey proceedings, the computer backup had been taken and impounded together with the hard disk along with the working card. An analysis had been done of the hard disk as per Annexure 'A' and no incriminating documents/transactions were found. Thus, during the course of survey, no incriminating material was found. However, the survey party worked out the cash deposits in the cash book maintained by the assessee and calculated the cash deposits from Financial Year 2007-08 to 18th September, 2014 at Rs. 2,998.56 crore and for the year under consideration at Rs. 96,85,63,426/- and called upon the petitioner to disclose the beneficiaries of such cash deposits. It appears that the petitioner sought some time to produce such details, in the meanwhile, since the limitation for issuing notice under section 148 of the Act was about to expire, the Investigation Wing forwarded the information to the Assessing Officer to take action, whereupon the Assessing Officer recorded the reasons as referred to hereinabove and issued the impugned notice seeking to reopen the assessment. 14. It may be noted that in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent, it is the case of the respondent that the petitioner is engaged in the business of cheque discounting and shroff. The firm charges commission for cheque discounting facility provided to its customers. The firm receives cash from the beneficiary and gives cheque in lieu thereof. The cheque is drawn in favour of the beneficiary. For arranging this transaction, the firm charges commission. The firm charges commission for cheque discounting facility provided to its customers. The firm receives cash from the beneficiary and gives cheque in lieu thereof. The cheque is drawn in favour of the beneficiary. For arranging this transaction, the firm charges commission. Reference has been made in the reply to instances where the petitioner has received cash from parties and has issued cheques in lieu thereof which were deposited by such parties in its account and the cheques were cleared at Rajkot. Based on this, the Assessing Officer had stated that she had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on account of the failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Thus, while it is the case of the respondent that it is the business of the petitioner to accept cash and issue cheques in lieu thereof, it is also the case of the respondent on the basis of the instances cited in the affidavit, that the cash deposits received by the petitioner are in the nature of undisclosed income, despite it being the specific case of the respondent that the petitioner had issued cheques in lieu of cash received by it which had been encashed by the concerned party by depositing the same in its bank account. It may be noted that it is not the case of the respondent that the beneficiary after encashing such amount had returned the same to the petitioner nor has any material been unearthed in this regard. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, as stated in the affidavit-in-reply, it is its business to receive cash and issue cheques in lieu thereof for which it charges commission. Under the circumstances, in the absence of any material to show that the cash in respect of which the cheque had been issued travelled back to the petitioner, one fails to understand as to how such amount may be said to be the undisclosed income of the petitioner. Under the circumstances, on the facts as recorded in the reasons as well as in the affidavit-in-reply, in the opinion of this court, the Assessing Officer could not have formed the belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Besides, as is evident from the facts narrated hereinabove, all the cash deposits have been recorded in the cash book. Under the circumstances, on the facts as recorded in the reasons as well as in the affidavit-in-reply, in the opinion of this court, the Assessing Officer could not have formed the belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Besides, as is evident from the facts narrated hereinabove, all the cash deposits have been recorded in the cash book. During the time of the first reopening, the Assessing Officer had called for all details of all the bank accounts of the petitioner and picked up some parties and examined the nature of the deposits made by them and was satisfied as regards the veracity thereof and accepted the income as shown in the return. Thus, though all the cash deposits were noticed by the Assessing Officer, he was satisfied in picking up sample cases and verifying them. At that point of time the Assessing Officer could as well have examined all the cash deposits, but he in his wisdom did not deem it fit and proceeded on a sample basis. What the Assessing Officer now seeks to do is to examine all the cash deposits, though the earlier Assessing Officer did not deem it fit to do so. The reopening of assessment is, therefore, clearly based on a change of opinion, inasmuch as the predecessor Assessing Officer did not deem it fit to examine each and every cash deposit and was satisfied with examining the cash deposits on the basis of sampling, whereas the present Assessing Officer now deems it fit to examine all the cash deposits. 15. As noticed earlier, in the present case, since the assessment is sought to be reopened beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, it is the case of the Assessing Officer that the petitioner has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment. As to what are the facts which the petitioner has failed to disclose, according to the Assessing Officer, these are the addresses and the Permanent Account Numbers of the beneficiaries of the cash deposits. In this regard, it may be noted that the petitioner maintains a cash book wherein the names of the parties, the date, the amount, the cheque number, the bank account, etc. are reflected. In this regard, it may be noted that the petitioner maintains a cash book wherein the names of the parties, the date, the amount, the cheque number, the bank account, etc. are reflected. The question that, therefore, arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is required to show the addresses and PAN of the parties in the cash book maintained by it. The learned counsel for the revenue has asserted that the petitioner is required to record the addresses and the Permanent Account Numbers of the parties in the cash book. He, however, is not able to point out any basis for saying so. In fact, on a plain reading of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, it is apparent that it is not the case of the Assessing Officer that there is any failure to disclose on the part of the petitioner because the addresses and the Permanent Account Numbers have not been disclosed in the cash book, but that the assessee has not disclosed the beneficiaries of cash deposits despite being given numerous opportunities to explain the same. As noticed earlier, in this case, a survey came to be carried out under section 133A of the Act wherein no incriminating material came to be found. But the survey party worked out the cash deposits recorded in the cash book and called upon the petitioner to disclose the identity of the beneficiaries. In the order rejecting the objections, the Assessing Officer has stated that the survey revealed cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 2998.56 crores in the petitioner's bank account for the period starting from financial year 2007-08 to 18th September, 2014 that is the date of survey. The survey also revealed cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 96,85,63,425/- for the year under consideration. These aspects were not disclosed by the petitioner at the time of earlier assessment and hence, these are concealed information for which the case has been reopened. Thus, what is stated in the order rejecting the objections is different from what is recorded in the reasons, viz., that the beneficiaries have not been disclosed. 96,85,63,425/- for the year under consideration. These aspects were not disclosed by the petitioner at the time of earlier assessment and hence, these are concealed information for which the case has been reopened. Thus, what is stated in the order rejecting the objections is different from what is recorded in the reasons, viz., that the beneficiaries have not been disclosed. It appears that the Assessing Officer herself is not clear as to what is the nature of failure on the part of the petitioner, inasmuch as, in the reasons recorded, it is stated that despite numerous opportunities, the beneficiaries of these cash deposits have not been disclosed; in the order rejecting the objections, it is the case of the Assessing Officer that the cash deposits had not been disclosed; whereas in the affidavit-in-reply, it is the case of the Assessing Officer that cheques were issued in lieu of cash and such cheques were encashed by the beneficiaries in their bank accounts at Rajkot, which gives reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In the opinion of this court, in case of a survey under section 133A of the Act, what is material are the suppressed transactions, if any, which are discovered as a result of the survey. In the present case, no material has been discovered during the survey warranting any further inquiry by the survey party. If consequent upon the survey, the survey party discovers any incriminating material, it may call upon the assessee to explain the same, but when no incriminating material is found, the survey party cannot assume the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer and call for information in relation to the material which is already on record. In case any concealed income has been discovered, it may justify reopening the assessment. In the present case, no concealed income has been discovered by the survey party, but the assessment is sought to be reopened for the purpose of verification of facts. 16. On behalf of the respondent, it has been contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner has failed to disclose primary facts like addresses and PAN of persons who made cash deposits and the persons in whose favour cheques came to be issued. It is, therefore, necessary to examine as to what constitutes "primary facts". 16. On behalf of the respondent, it has been contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner has failed to disclose primary facts like addresses and PAN of persons who made cash deposits and the persons in whose favour cheques came to be issued. It is, therefore, necessary to examine as to what constitutes "primary facts". In this regard, it may be apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (supra), wherein the court has held thus:-- "The expression "material facts" contained in section 34(1) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 refers only to primary facts and the duty of the assessee is to disclose such primary facts. There is no duty cast on the assessee to indicate or draw the attention of the Income Tax Officer what factual or legal inference can be drawn from the primary facts disclosed." 17. The Supreme Court in the case of Income Tax Officer, Azamgarh v. Mewalal Dwarka Prasad, (1989) 2 SCC 279 held thus:-- "8. With this conclusion the decision of the High Court would ordinarily have been reversed. As we have already stated, the assessee has also appealed against that part of the judgment of the High Court which was adverse to it. Mr. Manchanda contended that in this case the regular assessment had been made for the assessment year 1965-66 on January 22, 1966. Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on March 7, 1973, i.e., more than seven years after assessment had been completed. The three amounts mentioned in the notice under Section 148 of the Act were found in the assessee's accounts by the Income Tax Officer when he examined the same in course of the assessment proceedings. He had called upon the assessee to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions and the assessee had produced material to support the same. The Income Tax Officer accepted the documents produced and treated all the three transactions to be genuine and on that footing completed the assessment. The primary facts were before the Income Tax Officer at the time of the regular assessment and he called upon the assessee to explain to his satisfaction that the entries were genuine and on the basis of materials provided by the assessee satisfaction was reached. The primary facts were before the Income Tax Officer at the time of the regular assessment and he called upon the assessee to explain to his satisfaction that the entries were genuine and on the basis of materials provided by the assessee satisfaction was reached. It was then open to the Income Tax Officer to make further probe before completing the assessment if he was of the view that the material provided by the assessee was not sufficient for him to be satisfied that the assessee's contention was correct. This Court in Calcutta Discount Company Limited v. ITO held that the expression 'material facts' used in clause (a) referred only to primary facts and the duty of the assessee was confined to disclosure of primary facts and he had not to indicate what factual or legal inferences should properly be drawn from the primary facts. In the facts appearing on the record we are in agreement with Mr. Manchanda that clause (a) of Section 147 did not apply to the facts of the case as the alleged escapement of income for assessment had not resulted from failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for that year." 18. Thus, it is the statutory duty of the assessee to record all its transactions in the books of account to explain the source of payments made by it and to declare its true income in the return of income filed by it from year to year. In the present case, it is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner had not recorded all the transactions in the books of account. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner in its cash book has not noted the addresses and the Permanent Account Numbers of the parties who made the cash deposits. In the present case, as noted hereinabove, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act on 31st March, 2008 in respect of cash deposits made by the assessee in its ICICI bank account. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had also called for details of all bank accounts and also had looked into the cash transactions recorded in the cash book. Thus, the primary facts regarding the transactions were before the Assessing Officer. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had also called for details of all bank accounts and also had looked into the cash transactions recorded in the cash book. Thus, the primary facts regarding the transactions were before the Assessing Officer. He should, at the relevant time, have probed further before completing the assessment if he was of the view that the material provided by the petitioner was not sufficient for him to be satisfied that the petitioner's contention was correct. However, the Assessing Officer despite having all the transactions as recorded in the cash book before him, was satisfied with examining certain samples of the transactions and upon being satisfied with the genuineness of the same, did not deem it fit to look into each and every transaction recorded in the cash book. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Income-Tax Officer, I Ward, Distt. VI. Calcutta and Others v. Lakhmani Mewal Das, (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC), the duty is cast upon the assessee to make true and full disclosure of the primary facts at the time of the original assessment. Production before the Income Tax Officer of the account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Income Tax Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure contemplated by law. The duty of the assessee in any case does not extend beyond making a true and full disclosure of primary facts. Once he has done that, his duty ends. It is for the Income Tax Officer to draw the correct inference from the primary facts. It is not the responsibility of the assessee to advise the Income Tax Officer with regard to the inference which he should draw from the primary facts. If an Income Tax Officer draws an inference which appears subsequently to be erroneous, mere change of opinion with regard to that inference would not justify initiation of action for reopening assessment. In the present case, the Assessing Officer, at the time of the first reopening, examined the cash transactions to the extent he thought necessary and on the basis of the inference drawn by him, accepted the return as filed by the petitioner. In the present case, the Assessing Officer, at the time of the first reopening, examined the cash transactions to the extent he thought necessary and on the basis of the inference drawn by him, accepted the return as filed by the petitioner. However, the successor Assessing Officer now finds the inference drawn by the Assessing Officer to be erroneous, which amounts to a mere change of opinion and does not justify initiation of action under section 147 of the Act. Moreover, the Assessing Officer while recording the reasons, does not appear to have applied her mind to the information furnished by the Investigation Wing, inasmuch as, if she had ascertained the facts from the record, she would have found that certain cash deposits have already been examined at the time of assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act and had been accepted while framing assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act and would not have sought to reopen the assessment in respect of total amount of cash deposits recorded in the cash books. It is not the case of the respondent that the cash deposits of Rs. 96,85,63,426/- in respect of which the assessment is sought to be reopened are in addition to the cash deposits of Rs. 4,70,11,830/- in respect of which the assessment was reopened on the earlier occasion and the cash deposits which the Assessing Officer had examined while framing the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. 19. In the opinion of this court, in the present case on the self same material, namely, the entries made in the cash book, the Assessing Officer had formed the belief that income to the tune of Rs. 4,70,11,830/- had escaped assessment in the earlier proceedings under section 147 of the Act. In the said proceedings, the Assessing Officer called for details of all the bank accounts and after lengthy discussion, ultimately accepted the income as returned by the assessee. Now on the self same material, the Investigation Wing is of the opinion that the cash deposits need to be verified and on the basis of such information received from the Investigation Wing, the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment. Now on the self same material, the Investigation Wing is of the opinion that the cash deposits need to be verified and on the basis of such information received from the Investigation Wing, the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment. Prior to recording the reasons, it does not appear as if the Assessing Officer has verified the record of the case, else he would have found that in relation to part of the cash deposits, information had already been called for and that the Assessing Officer had been satisfied about the genuineness thereof. 20. Thus, it is apparent that at the time when the earlier assessment came to be framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, all the primary facts were before the Assessing Officer and he had thought it fit to examine certain transactions and on being satisfied about the genuineness thereof, had accepted the return as filed by the petitioner. Now, on the basis of the very same set of facts, the assessment is sought to be reopened merely by placing reliance upon the survey carried out by the Investigation Wing under section 133A of the Act during the course of which no fresh material has come to light, but on the basis of the very same transactions recorded in the cash book, the assessment is sought to be reopened. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the year under consideration. In the absence of any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment, the Assessing Officer lacks jurisdiction to reopen the assessment beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The impugned notice which has been issued beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, without there being any basis for formation of the requisite belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on account of any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts, therefore, cannot be sustained. 21. 21. As regards the decisions of the Supreme Court on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent, in Kantamani Venkatanarayana and Sons (supra), it is held that even if it is assumed that, from the books produced, the Income Tax Officer, if he had been circumspect, could have found out the truth, he is not on that account precluded from exercising the power to assess the income which has escaped assessment. In the present case, apart from the fact that the cash book was already on record, the Assessing Officer examined the same and made inquiry in respect thereof, to the extent he so deemed fit. This is not a case where the Assessing Officer has not looked into the cash book and has not applied his mind to the contents thereof. Hence, this decision does not in any manner support the case of the respondent. For the same reason, the decision of the Supreme Court in Malegaon Electricity Co. P. Ltd. (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. In Income Tax Officer v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court found that the letter of the Chief Mining Officer could constitute the basis for forming the belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In the present case, during the course of survey under section 133A of the Act, no incriminating material has been discovered, and on the basis of the self same material which the Assessing Officer had examined while framing assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, the assessment is sought to be reopened. Insofar as the decision of the Supreme Court in Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer (supra) is concerned, this court has already expressed the opinion that there is prima facie no material on the basis of which the Assessing Officer could reopen the assessment. This decision also, therefore, does not carry the case of the respondent any further. Insofar as the decision of the Supreme Court in Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer (supra) is concerned, this court has already expressed the opinion that there is prima facie no material on the basis of which the Assessing Officer could reopen the assessment. This decision also, therefore, does not carry the case of the respondent any further. The decision of this court in Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemical Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) would also not be applicable as this is not a case where the reopening is based on some material on record which had escaped the notice of the Assessing Officer at the time when the assessment came to be framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. In this case, the Assessing Officer, in the context of the entries made in the cash book called for details from the petitioner and examined the same to the extent he so deemed fit and accepted the return as filed by the petitioner. Similarly, the decision of this court in the case of Yogendrakumar Gupta v. Income Tax Officer (supra) would also not be applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as this is not a case where the Assessing Officer has formed his belief on the basis of subsequent new and specific information that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on account of omission on the part of the petitioner to make full and true disclosure of primary facts. In this case apart from the fact that primary facts were already on the record, the Assessing Officer at the time of framing assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act noticed the entries made in the cash book and called for details from the petitioner and formed an opinion thereon. Thus, this is a case of a mere change of opinion based on the self same material which had already been examined at the time when the previous assessment came to be made. For the detailed reasons set out hereinabove, the decisions of the Delhi High Court in Honda Seil Power Products Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Remfry and Sagar v. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra) are also not applicable to the facts of the present case. 22. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. For the detailed reasons set out hereinabove, the decisions of the Delhi High Court in Honda Seil Power Products Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Remfry and Sagar v. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra) are also not applicable to the facts of the present case. 22. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned notice dated 30th March, 2015 (Annexure 'G' to the petition) issued under section 148 of the Act whereby the respondent seeks to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2008-09 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.