JUDGMENT : Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J. 1. Petitioner has challenged a notice dated 28.3.2012 issued by the respondent-Assessing Officer to reopen the petitioner's assessment for the assessment year 2006-07. The petition arises in following background. 2. Petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act and is engaged in the business of Hazardous Solid Waste Management. For the assessment year 2006-07, the petitioner filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs. 3.10 Lacs after claiming deduction of Rs. 1.43 Crores under Section 80IA (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short). The return was taken in scrutiny. The Assessing Officer passed order of assessment on 26.12.2008, in which no disallowance was made for the deduction under Section 80IA (4) of the Act. 3. To reopen such assessment, the Assessing Officer had earlier issued a notice and also passed the order of assessment on 31.3.2010. A copy of the reasons for reopening is placed on record by the counsel for the petitioner. Perusal of such reasons would show that the Assessing Officer had dispute about the assessee's claim of deduction under Section 80IA (4) of the Act with respect to its one of the units situated at Alang. The Assessing Officer in the order of assessment dated 31.3.2010 held that said unit of the assessee did not qualify for deduction on the ground that the assessee did not fulfill one of the conditions viz. of owning the infrastructure facilities. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee derived the income from Alang unit by the assessee executing a work contract and not executed the work directly. 4. To once again reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2006-07, the Assessing Officer issued the impugned notice. In order to do so, he had recorded following reasons. "The assessee has claimed deduction U/s. 80IA of the Act for Rs. 1,43,17,930/- during the year. During the course of assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10, it was noticed that that assessee was not treating the hazardous waste as per requisite norms and failed to full the status of solid waste treatment plant eligible for deduction U/s. 80IA of the I.T. Act. Further assessee was also not fulfilling the conditions laid down U/s. 80IA of the I.T. Act to be eligible for deduction U/s. 80IA of the I.T. Act. Further assessee was also not fulfilling the conditions laid down U/s. 80IA of the I.T. Act to be eligible for deduction U/s. 80IA of the I.T. Act. In view of these facts, deduction claimed by assessee U/s. 80IA of the I.T. Act was disallowed while finalizing the assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 Act in respect of assessee's Gabheni Unit, Surat, Alang Unit, Alang and VMC Unit, Vadodara. On going through the record of A.Y. 2006-07, it is noticed that assessee has claimed deduction U/s. 80IA of the Act of Rs. 1,43,17,930/-. Since the assessee is not fulfilling the conditions laid down U/s. 80IA of the I.T. Act, the deduction claimed U/s. 80IA of the Act for the A.Y. 2006-07 will have to be disallowed by reopening the assessment. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that there is escapement of income of Rs. 1,43,17,930/- in the hands of assessee which is required to be taxed by reopening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961." 5. Assessee objected to such notice of reopening and the communication dated 25.3.2012. These objections were rejected by the Assessing Officer by an order dated 29.10.2012. Hence, this petition. 6. Appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel Shri Bandish Soparkar raised following contentions. "(i) Impugned notice has been issued beyond period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. (ii) During the assessment, original as well as in the reopening process, the Assessing Officer had examined the assessee's claim of deductions under Section 80IA (4) of the Act. To the extent he was of the opinion that the claim was not justified, it was disallowed. He now cannot re-examine the same issues which are based on mere change of opinion. (iii) Counsel pointed out that the Assessing Officer has relied on the assessment of the year 2009-10 for reopening assessment in the present case, whereas the order of assessment for the assessment year 2009-10 on the relevant issue has been reversed by the Commissioner (Appeals). He now cannot re-examine the same issues which are based on mere change of opinion. (iii) Counsel pointed out that the Assessing Officer has relied on the assessment of the year 2009-10 for reopening assessment in the present case, whereas the order of assessment for the assessment year 2009-10 on the relevant issue has been reversed by the Commissioner (Appeals). (iv) Counsel lastly contended that any observation made by the inspection team of the Gujarat Pollution Control Board ("GPCB" for short) during the subsequent period would not necessarily mean that there were defaults or defects in the performance of work by the assessee during the period relevant to assessment year 2006-07." 7. On the other hand, learned counsel Shri Bhatt for the department opposed the petition contending that the Assessing Officer has recorded proper reasons. During the assessment for the assessment year 2009-10 in case of the assessee it was found that the effluent treatment plant was not set up. GPCB had raised objections. He further submitted that even otherwise the basic conditions for deduction under Section 80IA (4) were not fulfilled by the assessee. 8. We have reproduced the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. First paragraph of the reasons pertains to the assessment for the assessment year 2009-10, during which the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee was not treating the hazardous waste as per the norms and thus failed to fulfill the status of solid waste management treatment plant, which was eligible for deduction. He further formed the opinion that the assessee did not fulfill the conditions for exemption under said provision. The assessee's claim for exemption was thus disallowed for the said year for all its treatment plants. Second paragraph of the reasons concerns the assessment year in question. With respect to the same, the Assessing Officer recorded that since the assessee was not fulfilling the conditions laid down under Section 80IA of the Act, deduction of Rs. 1.43 Crores claimed by the assessee would have to be disallowed by reopening the assessment. 9. What can be seen from such reasons is that though the Assessing Officer refers to the assessment of year 2009-10 for the purpose of his information, insofar as the year under consideration is concerned, he confined his reasons to one single aspect viz. of the assessee not fulfilling the necessary conditions for deduction. 9. What can be seen from such reasons is that though the Assessing Officer refers to the assessment of year 2009-10 for the purpose of his information, insofar as the year under consideration is concerned, he confined his reasons to one single aspect viz. of the assessee not fulfilling the necessary conditions for deduction. Literal reading of the reasons would imply that the Assessing Officer was not pressing in service the ground of deficiencies in the treatment of waste that the assessee was imparting, which he had noticed in the assessment year 2009-10, for the present year i.e. assessment year 2006-07. Further his reference to the assessee not fulfilling the conditions for claim of deduction is, by itself, rather vague and general reference. In our understanding, the reasons lack clarity. 10. If we take a more lenient view, at best it can be said that for the assessment year 2006-07, the Assessing Officer wanted to press in service the ground of the assessee not fulfilling the conditions for deduction as he had referred to in his order of assessment for the year 2009-10. This ground is completely independent and unrelated to his observation of the assessee not treating the hazardous waste as per the requisite norms. In the year 2009-10, the Assessing Officer had held that the assessee was executing the work as a work contractor and not in its own capacity. It was this defect, according to him, which made the assesee ineligible for deduction under Section 80IA (4) of the Act. 11. In this respect, firstly there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose necessary facts. The documents in the nature of contracts between the government and other agencies were very much part of the record. In a case where reopening of assessment is being resorted beyond the period of four years this would be relevant. Further, during the assessment pursuant to the first notice for reopening, the Assessing Officer had examined the claim of deduction under Section 80IA (4) of the Act. It may be that the Assessing Officer had only one of the units of the assessee in mind when such assessment was being framed. Nevertheless nothing prevented him from disallowing such deduction qua other units also if similar situation obtained. 12. There is another reason why this ground cannot sustain. It may be that the Assessing Officer had only one of the units of the assessee in mind when such assessment was being framed. Nevertheless nothing prevented him from disallowing such deduction qua other units also if similar situation obtained. 12. There is another reason why this ground cannot sustain. We gather from the record that for the assessment year 2004-05, the assessee did not initially claim deduction under Section 80 IA (4) of the Act for the profit from its Gabheni Unit. However, during scrutiny of assessment since income became positive due to certain additions, the assessee pressed such a claim. This claim was examined and after verifying necessary eligibility requirements, the Assessing Officer allowed the claim. The documents including the contracts between the parties under which the assessee had carried out the work form part of such proceedings. 13. Even if we were to stretch the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, as was attempted by the counsel for the revenue, at best we can proceed on the basis that the Assessing Officer wanted to rely on the failure of the assessee to properly treat the solid waste for denying the claim of deduction in the present year. However, this ground itself has multiple hurdles. Firstly, nowhere do the reasons record that there was such defect or default on the part of the assessee in treating the waste during the period relevant to the assessment year 2006-07. From the order of the Appellate Commissioner in appeal filed by the assessee against the original assessment for the said year, we gather that the defects were noticed by inspecting team of GPCB during its visit sometime in October and November 2011. Any defect or deficiency which may have been detected during a particular inspection visit would not necessarily imply that such defects existed during the period nearly three to four years back. Unless that defect was of such a nature, which would automatically establish that no facilities were ever created, the revenue would have to have some foundation to suggest that during the period relevant to assessment year 2006-07 also such defects existed. This being a case of reopening of assessment, only for the purpose of fishing inquiry the same would not be permissible. 14. In the result, petition is allowed. This being a case of reopening of assessment, only for the purpose of fishing inquiry the same would not be permissible. 14. In the result, petition is allowed. Impugned Notice dated 28.3.2012 issued by the respondent-Assessing Officer to reopen the petitioner's assessment for the assessment year 2006-07 is set aside. Rule is made absolute.