JUDGMENT : Harsha Devani, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Sudhir Mehta, learned Senior Standing Counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the notice dated 25.03.2015 issued by the respondent under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") whereby, he seeks to reopen the assessment of the petitioner for assessment year 2008-09. 3. The facts stated briefly are that the petitioner is a Cooperative Society manufacturing sugar from sugarcane supplied by its members and has been assessed to tax under the provisions of the Act for the last several years. For assessment year 2008-09, the Assessing Officer issued the impugned notice dated 25.03.2015 under section 148 of the Act in response to which, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 05.01.2016 stating that the return under section 139 of the Act as originally filed be considered as a return in response to reassessment notice and also prayed for the copy of the reasons recorded. By a letter dated 06.01.2016, such reasons came to be furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner filed its objections to the respondent by a letter dated 12.01.2016, which came to be rejected by an order dated 18.01.2016. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 4. Mr. Manish Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner invited the attention of the court to the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, to submit that on similar grounds, in case of the petitioner and other similarly situated assessees, the Assessing Officer sought to reopen the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, which came to be challenged by the petitioner and other assessees before this court and this court in the case of Shri Chalthan Vibhag Khand Udhyog Sahakari Mandali Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2015) 376 ITR 419, had set aside the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act, both on merits as well as on the ground that in the absence of any allegation in the notice under section 148 that there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, the assumption of jurisdiction was wholly without jurisdiction and illegal. It was submitted that the reasons recorded in the present case being more or less identical to the reasons recorded in the case of Shri Chalthan Vibhag Khand Udhyog Sahakari Mandali Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), the present petition also deserves to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned notice. Referring to the above decision, it was pointed out that the petitioner herein was one of the parties before this court and had challenged the reopening of its assessment for assessment years 2007-08 and 2009-10. It was further submitted that the above decision of this court was carried before the Supreme Court and the special leave petition filed against the said decision came to be dismissed and hence the said decision has attained finality. Reference was also made to an unreported decision of this court in the case of Shri Narmada Khand Udhyog Sahkari Mandali Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1) rendered on 02.02.2016 in Special Civil Application No. 16593 of 2015 and allied matters wherein, the court had followed the earlier decision in the case of Shri Chalthan Vibhag Khand Udhyog Sahakari Mandali Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) and had quashed the notice under section 148 of the Act in a case relating to reopening of assessment wherein the return had been accepted under section143(1) of the Act. 5. Mr. Sudhir Mehta, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent, was not able to dispute the aforesaid position of law or to distinguish between the facts of the above cases and the present one. 6. On a perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment as referred to in the case of Shri Chalthan Vibhag Khand Udhyog Sahakari Mandali Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) and the reasons recorded in the present case, it is evident that the grounds for reopening the assessment in the present case are identical to the grounds for reopening the assessment in the said case. This court, in the above case, after giving detailed reasons in support of its conclusion, has set aside the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act on the ground that the formation of opinion in the case of the assessee could not be sustained as the same can be said to be a borrowed satisfaction from another officer and such borrowed satisfaction, in the absence of any application of mind and any real finding in the case of the assessee, does not constitute valid reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment. The court took note of the fact that despite the fact that in certain cases, reopening was beyond a period of four years, in the reasons recorded, there was not even a whisper as regards any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts. 7. In the facts of the present case, the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued on 25.03.2015 for reopening the assessment for assessment year 2008-09, which is clearly beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Under the circumstances, in view of the first proviso to section 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer is required to record twin satisfaction, viz., that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and that such escapement is by reason of failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the year under consideration. On a perusal of the reasons recorded it is amply clear that there is nothing stated therein to the effect that there was any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Thus, the second condition precedent for exercise of powers under section 147 of the Act is clearly not satisfied. Moreover, even as regards the first condition, namely, that the Assessing Officer should record satisfaction that income chargeable to tax should have escaped assessment, in the light of the reasons recorded by this court in the case of Shri Chalthan Vibhag Khand Udhyog Sahakari Mandali Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), it cannot be said that on the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, the Assessing Officer could have formed the belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Therefore, even the first condition precedent for exercise of powers under section 147 of the Act, is not satisfied. Under the circumstances, the impugned notice issued under section 148 of the Act cannot be sustained. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned notice dated 25.03.2015 issued by the respondent under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly.