JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise in both these petitions with respect to the same assessee, but with respect to different assessment years, both these petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Special Civil Application No. 925 of 2013 has been preferred by the petitioner-assessee for quashing and setting aside the impugned Notice dated 28th March 2012 issued by the respondent under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"] by which the Assessing Officer has sought to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2005-2006 alleging inter alia that the income chargeable to tax has escaped the assessment for the year under consideration. 3. Special Civil Application No. 3005 of 2014 has been preferred by the very petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 925 of 2013 for issuance of appropriate direction quashing and setting aside the impugned Notice dated 9th November 2012 issued by the respondent under Section 148 of the Act by which the Assessing Officer on the very ground has sought to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2006-2007 alleging inter alia that the income liable to tax for Assessment Year 2006-2007 has escaped the assessment. 4. Facts leading to filing of writ petitions, in nutshell, are as under:- "4.1 That the petitioner-assessee is in the business of owning and operating Container Freight Station [hereinafter referred to as, "the CFS"]. It has established CFS at Dronagiri Node, Navi Mumbai. That, the petitioner-assessee's application dated 20th May 2003 for setting up of a CFS was approved by the Ministry of Commerce & Industries vide letter dated 30th June 2003. According to the petitioner-assessee, even the Commissioner of Customs [Exports], Navi Mumbai vide Notification No. 5 : dated 16th September 2004 had notified the area of the petitioner-assessee as customs area for the purpose of storage, stuffing/de-stuffing and clearance of export/import of goods through the concerned Port. 4.2 The assessee filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2005-2006 declaring total income at Rs. Nil, after claiming deduction under Section 80IA [4] of the Act of Rs. 88,63,833/-. The assessee paid the tax under Section 115JB of the Act at the rate of 7.5% of the Book Profit of Rs. 4,56,48,348/-. 4.2 The assessee filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2005-2006 declaring total income at Rs. Nil, after claiming deduction under Section 80IA [4] of the Act of Rs. 88,63,833/-. The assessee paid the tax under Section 115JB of the Act at the rate of 7.5% of the Book Profit of Rs. 4,56,48,348/-. The assessee also produced books of account, as audited under Section 44AB of the Act as well as a Certificate under Section 80IA in Form 10CCB, alongwith the return of income. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under Section 143 [2] of the Act. That, after considering the material on record and the details furnished by the assessee, and after the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Jamnagar having personally inspected the operation of CFS at Dronagiri Node, Navi Mumbai, the Assessing Officer allowed the claim of the assessee of deduction under Section 80IA [4] of the Act, and consequently, the Assessing Officer framed scrutiny under Section 143 [3] of the Act. That, beyond the period of four years from the date of relevant assessment year, the respondent has issued the impugned Notice under Section 148 of the Act by which the Assessing Officer has sought to reopen the assessment for A.Y 2005-2006 on the ground that the income chargeable to tax within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act has escaped the assessment. At the request of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has furnished the reasons recorded to reopen the assessment for A.Y 2005-2006, which reads as under:- "The return of Income was filed on 31.10.2005 declaring total Income at nil. The assessee is engaged in the business of owning and operating a container freight station (CFS) Dronagiri Node at Navi Mumbai. In the return of income, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act of Rs. 88,63,933/- on the income arising out of the activities in the CFS. The case was selected for scrutiny and after considering the material available on the records, the income was assessed at Rs. 4,02,645/-. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department of Commerce, Infrastructure Division, vide its letter No. 16/11/2003-Infra-1, dated 26/06/2003, approved the assessee's proposal for setting up of CFS at Dronagiri Node. 4,02,645/-. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department of Commerce, Infrastructure Division, vide its letter No. 16/11/2003-Infra-1, dated 26/06/2003, approved the assessee's proposal for setting up of CFS at Dronagiri Node. Under the Income-tax act, an assessee can claim deduction u/s. 80IA provided it satisfies the conditions laid down in the Income-tax Act and the circulars issued by the CBDT, from time to time. Such conditions are laid down in circular No. 793 :, dated 23.06.2000 and 10 of 2005, dated 16.12.2005 and further clarification dated 6.1.2011 issued by the CBDT. The conditions laid down for claim of deduction u/s. 80I from A.Y. 2002-03 onwards are contained in the Board's circular No. 10 of 2005 : dated 16.12.2005, which is as under; "... for and from assessment year 2002-03 onwards, structures at the ports for storage, loading and unloading etc. will be included in the definition of "port" for the purpose of sections 10(23G) and 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, if the following condition is fulfilled; "the concerned port authority has issued a certificate that the said structures form part of the port". 2. It appears that Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust had vide its letter dated 29.10.2005 intimated the assessee that the CFS situated on the land, does not belong to the port. This circular was subsequently withdrawn by Jawaharlal Nehru Port vide its letter No. JNP/FIN./2007, dated 24.10.2007. Under the circumstances, the assessee is not eligible for claim of deduction u/s. 80IA as the conditions are not satisfied and the assessee was aware of it as per the letter of JNPT mentioned above. Accordingly, Income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, on failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment before the Assessing officer. Accordingly, I am satisfied that it is a fit case for reopening of assessment u/s. 147." 4.3 That, immediately thereafter, the assessee filed detailed objections against reopening and the reasons recorded to reopen the scrutiny assessment under Section 148 [3] of the Act. Accordingly, I am satisfied that it is a fit case for reopening of assessment u/s. 147." 4.3 That, immediately thereafter, the assessee filed detailed objections against reopening and the reasons recorded to reopen the scrutiny assessment under Section 148 [3] of the Act. It was the specific case on behalf of the assessee that after scrutiny of the claim of the assessee of deduction claimed under Section 80IA of the Act and after holding necessary inquiry, the Assessing Officer accepted the claim of the assessee of deduction of the claim under Section 80IA [4] of the Act. It was, therefore, submitted that the subsequent reopening was nothing but change of opinion on the part of the Assessing Officer. It was further submitted that as such there was no failure on the part of the assessee in not disclosing the true and correct facts. It is submitted that as such, even the letter which has been relied upon by the Assessing Officer while reopening the assessment was very much available with the Assessing Officer at the time of scrutiny assessment, and therefore, it was requested to drop the re-assessment proceedings, as there was no failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing the true and correct facts. That thereafter, the Assessing Officer has not accepted the objections raised by the assessee and has disposed of the said objection. Hence, the present Special Civil Application No. 925 of 2013 challenging the impugned notice for reopening the assessment for A.Y 2005-2006. On the very ground for which the assessment for A.Y 2005-2006 is sought to be reopened, the Assessing Officer has also reopened the assessment for A.Y 2006-2007, which is the subject matter of S.C.A No. 3005 of 2014." 5. Shri S.N Soparkar, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-assessee has vehemently submitted that as such, the earlier Assessing Officer framed the scrutiny assessment, after holding due inquiry. It was a scrutiny assessment and after holding necessary inquiry and considering material on the record, the Assessing Officer accepted the claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. It is submitted that therefore, the subsequent reopening for the reasons stated is nothing but change of opinion by the subsequent Assessing Officer, and therefore, the impugned notices/reopening of the assessment of concluded scrutiny assessment deserve to be quashed and set-aside. It is submitted that therefore, the subsequent reopening for the reasons stated is nothing but change of opinion by the subsequent Assessing Officer, and therefore, the impugned notices/reopening of the assessment of concluded scrutiny assessment deserve to be quashed and set-aside. 5.1 It is further submitted by Shri S.N Soparkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-assessee that even otherwise, the impugned notices under Section 148 of the Act are required to be quashed and set-aside as the condition precedent for assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act are not satisfied. It is submitted that as such, there was no failure on the part of the assessee in not disclosing the true and correct facts necessary for assessment. It is submitted that whatever the material was required for assessment was already furnished by the assessee and after holding necessary inquiry and considering the material available on the record only thereafter, the Assessing Officer granted deduction under Section 80IA [4] of the Act. It is submitted that, therefore, as there was no failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing true and correct facts, the condition precedent of assuming jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act are not satisfied. It is submitted that therefore also, the impugned notices/reopening of assessment deserve to be quashed and set-aside. 5.2 It is further submitted by Shri Soparkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that even otherwise, reopening of the assessment on the grounds stated in the reasons i.e., on the ground that as the land on which CFS was situated does not belong to the Port Trust, which is a wrong assumption and interpretation of Section 80AI of the Act. It is submitted that as such CFS was owned by the assessee and the assessee was providing infrastructure and other facilities. It is submitted that as such CFS is an Inland Port, as it carries out functions of warehousing, customs clearance and transport of goods from its location to sea-port and vice verse by rail or by trucks in containers. It is submitted that therefore, the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80IA of the Act; as claimed. It is submitted that as such CFS is an Inland Port, as it carries out functions of warehousing, customs clearance and transport of goods from its location to sea-port and vice verse by rail or by trucks in containers. It is submitted that therefore, the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80IA of the Act; as claimed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel Shri S.N Soparkar has heavily relied upon decisions of [i] Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax II, Thane v. Continental Warehousing Corporation [Nhava Sheva] Limited, 374 ITR 645 [Bombay]; [ii] of Madras High Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. A.L Logistics [P] Limited, [2015] 374 ITR 609 [Madras]; and [iii] of Delhi High Court in the case of Container Corporation of India Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, 346 ITR 140 [Delhi]. 5.3 Making above submissions and relying upon the above decisions, it is requested by Shri Soparkar, learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee to allow the present petitions and to quash and set-aside the impugned Notices issued under Section 148 of the Act. 6. Present petitions are vehemently opposed by Shri Pranav Desai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Revenue. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Desai, learned counsel for the Revenue that in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the Assessing Officer has found that vital document/letter written by Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust dated 29th October 2005 vide which the assessee was intimated that the CFS situated on the land does not belong to the Port was withheld by the assessee, and therefore, suppressed the same, and therefore, the Assessing Officer is justified in reopening the assessment beyond the period of four years. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Desai, learned counsel for the Revenue that if the said letter dated 29th October 2005 would have been produced by the assessee before the Assessing Officer in that case, the Assessing Officer considering the Port Circular No. 10 of 2005 : dated 16th December 2005, by which one of the condition provide for benefit under Section 80IA of the Act was that the structures must form part of the Port, the assessee would not have got the benefit under Section 80IA of the Act, as the Assessing Officer might not have granted such benefit. It is submitted that therefore, when the aforesaid vital document/communication was suppressed by the assessee, the case falls within proviso to Section 147 of the I.T. Act, and therefore, the Assessing officer, on the facts and circumstances of the case, is justified in reopening of the assessment beyond the period of four years. 6.1 Making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the present writ petitions. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 8. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case, the assessment for A.Y 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 are sought to be reopened beyond the period of four years. Therefore, unless and until it is found that there was suppression of material facts on the part of the assessee in not disclosing the true and correct facts necessary for the assessment, it is not open for the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment beyond the period of four years. However, it is required to be noted that the Assessing Officer, while framing scrutiny assessment under Section 143 [3] of the Act, considered the claim in detail of the assessee under Section 80IA of the Act and only thereafter, considering the activities and functionalities of CFS, treated and considered CFS as Port itself. Therefore, after a detailed scrutiny and even after Assessing Officer and Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Jamnagar personally verifying the activities/functionalities of the CFS, having treated CFS as an Inland Port, granted benefit under Section 80IA of the Act. Therefore, even if communication dated 29th October 2005 by Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust to the assessee would have no direct effect on the grant of benefit under Section 80IA of the Act, as on facts and considering the activities of CFS, the Assessing Officer has already held CFS as a Port itself. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that there was any suppression of material facts on the part of the assessee in not disclosing true and correct facts necessary for the assessment. Even whether CFS can be said to be an Inland Port or not is squarely covered by the decision of Delhi High Court in case of Container Corporation of India Limited [Supra] and the Bombay High Court in the case of Continental Warehousing Corporation [Nhava Sheva] Limited [Supra]. Even whether CFS can be said to be an Inland Port or not is squarely covered by the decision of Delhi High Court in case of Container Corporation of India Limited [Supra] and the Bombay High Court in the case of Continental Warehousing Corporation [Nhava Sheva] Limited [Supra]. After considering the very CBDT Circular No. 10 of 2005 : dated 16th December 2005, the Delhi High Court and Bombay High Court have specifically observed and held that looking to the facilities provided by CFS, the CFS is an Inland Port as it carries out functions of warehousing, customs clearance and transport of goods from its location to sea-port and vice versa by rail or by trucks in containers. 9. As observed hereinabove, even the impugned reopening can be said to be on change of opinion by the subsequent Assessing Officer. As observed hereinabove, the claim of the assessee under Section 80IA of the Act was specifically gone into in detail by the Assessing Officer, while framing scrutiny assessment under Section 143 [3] of the Act. The entire material which was produced on record; including the Certificate issued by the Customs authorities as well as after considering inspection by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Jamnagar in respect of the aforesaid CFS, the Assessing Officer allowed the claim of the assessee and granted benefit under Section 80IA [4] of the Act. Under the circumstances, the impugned re-assessment is nothing but a change of opinion on the part of the subsequent Assessing Officer. Under the circumstances, the reopening of the concluded scrutiny assessment under Section 143 [3] of the Act and that too after a period of four years is unsustainable and/or not maintainable. 10. In view of the above and for the reasons aforestated, the present writ petitions succeed. The impugned Notices dated 28th March 2012 and 9th November 2012 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the respondent are hereby quashed and set-aside. Rule made absolute to the aforestated extent with no order as to costs.