JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise, both these petitions are decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Special Civil Application No. 15991 of 2010 has been preferred by the petitioner/assessee-Messrs. Jivraj Tea Limited for issuance of writ or order quashing and setting aside the impugned Notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ["the Act" for short] by which the Assessing Officer has sought to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2005-2006 on the ground that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 3. A similar notice dated 29th March 2010 has been issued in the case of another assessee viz., Messrs. Jivraj Tea Company, by which the Assessing Officer has sought to reopen the assessment for AY 2005-2006, on the very ground on which the assessment for AY 2005-2006 is sought to be reopened in the case of Messrs. Jivraj Tea Limited. 4. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Special Civil Application No. 15991 of 2010 are narrated. 4.1 The petitioner/assessee-Messrs. Jivraj Tea Limited filed return of income for A.Y 2005-2006 by declaring "Nil" the total income because of 80G deductions and 80IA deductions and Section 115JB book profit of Rs. 2,66,60,078/=. That, alongwith the return of income, the assessee produced audit report in Form No. 3CD. That thereafter, the petitioner-assessee was served with a Notice under Section 142 (1) of the Act, as the case was selected for scrutiny assessment. Detailed queries were asked with respect to the transactions with the sister concerns and disallowances under Section 40A[2](b) of the Act. The same were replied to by the assessee satisfactorily. The assessee also justified the purchases made from the sister concerns and that too at the price, which were paid to the sister concerns. That thereafter, the Assessing Officer framed the scrutiny assessment under Section 143 [3] of the Act. That thereafter, the petitioner has been served with the impugned Notice under Section 148 of the Act within the period of four years alleging inter alia that the income chargeable to tax has escaped the assessment. That thereafter, the Assessing Officer framed the scrutiny assessment under Section 143 [3] of the Act. That thereafter, the petitioner has been served with the impugned Notice under Section 148 of the Act within the period of four years alleging inter alia that the income chargeable to tax has escaped the assessment. That, on the request of the assessee, the petitioner has been supplied the reasons recorded to reopen the assessment which read as under :- "On verification of the case records for the A.Y 2005-06, it revealed that the assessee had purchased tea from relative persons and related concerns as per Annexure III attached with Form No. 3CD report in reference to clause 18 of 3CD. Further, as per purchase register, it is noticed that the assessee had purchased tea from private parties. Further, it is also noticed from the purchase register, that the fair market value of tea purchased from the private parties was average rate of Rs. 117.60 whereas, the market rate from related concern was Rs. 134.70; 128.40 [Jivraj Tea Company & Surin Corpn.]. Hence, the assessee had paid excess payment to related parties amounting to Rs. 3,30,46,636/= under Section 40A[2a] of the I.T Act. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that in the case of assessee Company M/s. Jivraj Tea Limited, income has escaped assessment to the extent of Rs. 3,30,46,636/= for A.Y 2005-06". 4.2 That, the concerned assessee raised objections against the reasons to reopen the assessment submitted that the question with respect to the transactions with sister concerns and also the purchase price paid to the sister concerns was in fact gone into by the Assessing Officer at the time of scrutiny proceedings, and therefore, on the very ground, reopening is not permissible, as the same can be said to be a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer. That, the objections raised by the petitioner-assessee has been disposed by the Assessing Officer against the assessee. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application No. 15991 of 2010. 4.3 A similar notice under Section 148 of the Act for reopening of the assessment has been issued in the case of another assessee viz., Messrs. Jivraj Tea Company, wherein, the assessment for AY 2005-2006 is sought to be reopened on the very ground, which is subject matter of Special Civil Application No. 14456 of 2010. 5. 4.3 A similar notice under Section 148 of the Act for reopening of the assessment has been issued in the case of another assessee viz., Messrs. Jivraj Tea Company, wherein, the assessment for AY 2005-2006 is sought to be reopened on the very ground, which is subject matter of Special Civil Application No. 14456 of 2010. 5. Shri Manish J Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has vehemently submitted that the impugned Notices are bad in law and contrary to the provisions of Section 143 of the Act. It is submitted that the issue with respect to the purchases made from the sister concerns and the purchase price paid by the assessee to the concerned sister concerns were in fact gone into in detail by the Assessing Officer, while framing the scrutiny assessment. It is submitted that specific queries were raised with respect to transactions made with the sister concerns and also in respect of the purchase price paid. It is submitted that the assessee furnished all the necessary materials/information asked by the Assessing Officer and also justified the purchase price paid to the concerned sister concerns. It is submitted that only thereafter, the Assessing Officer framed scrutiny assessment. It is submitted that therefore, when the issue with respect to transactions with the sister concerns and also with respect to the purchase price paid to the sister concerns was also gone into in detail by the Assessing Officer, while framing the scrutiny assessment. To reopen the assessment on the very ground can be said to be a mere change of opinion by the subsequent Assessing Officer, which is not permissible. In support of the above submissions, learned advocate for the petitioners has heavily relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Kelvinator of India Limited, [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC). 6. Both these petitions are vehemently opposed by Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue. It is submitted that in the present cases, the assessment for AY 2005-2006 is sought to be reopened within the period of four years. 6. Both these petitions are vehemently opposed by Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue. It is submitted that in the present cases, the assessment for AY 2005-2006 is sought to be reopened within the period of four years. It is submitted that as the Assessing Officer formed an opinion that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, as the assessee paid higher sum of purchase price to the sister concerns, and thereafter when the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment, the same are not required to be interfered by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in both the cases assessment for AY 2005-2006 is sought to be reopened on the grounds reproduced hereinabove. However, it is required to be noted that the issue/question with respect to the purchases made from the sister concerns and the price paid to these sister concerns were as such gone into in detail by the Assessing Officer during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings. Specific queries were asked by the Assessing Officer with respect to the transactions with the sister concerns and the purchase price paid to the sister concerns and the said queries were satisfied by the assessee concerned. The assessee also justified the purchases from the sister concern and also justified the purchase price paid to the sister concerns. Therefore, when the aforesaid issue was already gone into in detail by the Assessing Officer, subsequent re-opening on the very ground can be said to be a mere change of opinion by the subsequent Assessing Officer. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kelvinator of India Limited [Supra] on the mere change of opinion by the subsequent Assessing Officer, reopening of assessment is not permissible. 8. As observed hereinabove, the issue with respect to the purchases made from the sister concerns and the price paid to the sister concern was in fact gone into in detail by the Assessing Officer during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings. Under the circumstances, the impugned Notices to reopen the assessment for A.Y 2005-2006 in each case on the grounds/reasons stated by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained and the same deserve to be quashed and set-aside on the aforesaid ground alone. 9. Under the circumstances, the impugned Notices to reopen the assessment for A.Y 2005-2006 in each case on the grounds/reasons stated by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained and the same deserve to be quashed and set-aside on the aforesaid ground alone. 9. In view of the above and for the reasons aforestated, both these petitions succeed. The impugned Notices under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [both dated 29th March 2010] are hereby quashed and set-aside. Rule nisi made absolute to the aforestated extent in each of the petitions. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.