JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ, order to quash and set-aside the impugned notice 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 2010-2011 alleging inter alia that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. The petitioner has also challenged the reopening of the assessment for A.Y. 2010-2011. 2. The facts leading to the present Special Civil Application in nutshell are as under :- 2.1 That the petitioner filed return of income for Assessment Year 2010-2011 declaring total income of Rs. 1,06,85,470/-. That, alongwith the return, the assessee submitted tax audit report and the audited annual accounts also. That, the assessee claimed depreciation on certain equipments at the rate of 30% as against the regular/normal depreciation. The case was selected for scrutiny. The assessee was served with a notice under Section 142 [1] & [2] of the Act. Number of questions were raised by the Assessing Officer in the notice dated 7th August 2012; including with respect to depreciation claimed by the assessee at the rate of 30%. That thereafter, the Assessing Officer framed the assessment allowing 30% depreciation on certain equipments against the regular/normal depreciation; as claimed by the assessee. 2.2 That thereafter, the petitioner has been served with the impugned Notice under Section 148 of the Act alleging inter alia that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for Assessment Year 2010-2011 within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. 2.3 The reasons recorded to reopen the assessment for A.Y. 2010-2011 reads as under :- "As per Income Tax Act, 1961, motor buses, motor lorries and motor taxis used in a business of running them on hire are eligible for depreciation at higher rate of 30% [Covered by sub item (3) of item III of Appendix-I of Rule-5]. However, vehicles other than those covered by this sub-items are eligible for depreciation at ordinary rate of 15% only. However, when the Trucks/motor lorries are primarily used in assessee's own business, occasionally let out on hire, the assessee will not be eligible for higher rate depreciation. Further as per CBDT Circular No. 652 : dt. However, vehicles other than those covered by this sub-items are eligible for depreciation at ordinary rate of 15% only. However, when the Trucks/motor lorries are primarily used in assessee's own business, occasionally let out on hire, the assessee will not be eligible for higher rate depreciation. Further as per CBDT Circular No. 652 : dt. 14.06.1993, higher rate of depreciation will also be admissible on motor lorries used in the assessee's business of transportation of goods on hire but not to its user in some other non-hiring business of the assessee. The assessee company engaged in the business of Oil Field Services/Rig Shifting Services, filed return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 on 25.09.2010 declaring income of Rs. 1,06,85,470/-. The same was assessed u/s. 143(3) and income was assessed at Rs. 1,08,22,910/- vide order dated 18.01.2013. The assessee had claimed depreciation on Truck, Tanker, Trailor, Air Compressor, Cranses, Bolero etc. at the rate of 30% as per the following details. Asset@30% W.D.V. Addition upto 9/2009 Addition after 9/2010 Total Depreciation at 30% Depreciation allowable @ 15% Excess Depreciation allowed TATA-407 5151 5151 1545 773 773 Tankers 8073934 = (867 6934-sold-603000 313000 0 8386934 2516080 1258040 1258040 Trailor A/c. 717500 1400000 2300000 4417500 980250 490125 490125 Truck 82594 0 Unit-321 250435 0 82594 24778 12389 12389 Unit-8291 1057109 0 250435 75131 37565 37565 Unit-5676 425000 0 1342567 402770 201385 201385 Air Compressor 1342567 0 1342567 402770 201385 201385 Bolero 3216973 2044113 460747 5721833 1647438 823719 823719 Tata-Ace 258536 258536 77561 38780 38780 Cranes 2785359 5641395 9217250 17644004 3910614 1955307 1955307 Setaming Unit (Boiler) 3262010 970262 = 11671 38-Cenvat-196876 2793870 7026142 1718294 859147 859147 Total 13398083 7581919 12011120 46617805 11799094 5899546 58,99,546 The depreciation at higher rate of 30% was claimed on the ground that the assessee was claimed on the ground that the assessee was hiring Vehicles/Heavy vehicles Machinery. It was revealed from assessment records that the assessee was not engaged in the business of transportation of goods on hire, but was engaged in the business of Oil Field Services/Rig Shifting Services work for which above vehicles were used. The assessee was using above vehicles in their own business. Since the assessee had not used these vehicles in the transportation business of running them on hire. Further, as per the P&L Account, no 'hire income' has been shown. The assessee was using above vehicles in their own business. Since the assessee had not used these vehicles in the transportation business of running them on hire. Further, as per the P&L Account, no 'hire income' has been shown. Even in case, they were used not solely for their own business, just by giving them on hire occasionally, the assessee does not become eligible for higher depreciation of 30 percent; the assessee was eligible for depreciation at normal rate of 15 percent only. In view of the above facts, I have reasons to believe that the income of Rs. 58,99,546/- has escaped the assessment within the meaning of provisions of section 147 of the I.T. Act and hence notice u/s. 148 of Income Tax Act is issued" If you have any objection against the re-assessment proceedings, then file the same immediately." 2.4 On receipt of the reasons recorded to reopen the assessment for A.Y. 2010-2011, the assessee raised detailed objections against the reopening. It was submitted on behalf of the assessee that the issue with respect to depreciation at the rate of 30% claimed by the assessee was gone into by the Assessing Officer in scrutiny assessment, and therefore, reopening is solely on the basis of change of opinion by the subsequent officer, and therefore, the reopening on the aforesaid ground is not permissible. However, the Assessing Officer has not agreed with the objections submitted by the assessee, and by an order dated 19th September 2014, the Assessing Officer has rejected the objections. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the aforestated reliefs. 3. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has chosen to remain absent. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the aforestated reliefs. 3. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has chosen to remain absent. However, considering the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 3rd November 2015, in which the Division Bench has quoted the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, it appears that reopening of the assessment for A.Y. 2010-2011 is sought to be challenged mainly on the ground that reopening is nothing, but a change of opinion by the subsequent Officer in as much as at the time of scrutiny assessment, the claim of the petitioner of depreciation at the rate of 30% was gone into and even a specific query was raised vide item No. 28 with regard to the claim of 30% depreciation, as against the regular depreciation and the petitioner replied to the same and only thereafter, the Assessing Officer accepted the claim of the petitioner for depreciation at the rate of 30% against the regular depreciation, and therefore, it is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned reopening is nothing but a change of opinion by the subsequent Officer, and therefore, the reopening of assessment is not permissible. 4. Shri Manish R. Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue has tried to support the impugned notice by submitting that as the Assessing Officer has formed an opinion that on the particular items/equipments, the assessee was not entitled to claim 30% depreciation against the regular depreciation, and therefore, the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, and therefore, the Assessing Officer is justified in reopening the assessment. 4.1 It is further submitted by Shri M.R Bhatt, learned counsel for the Revenue that even in the present case, the reopening of assessment is within a period of four years. 4.2 Making the above submissions, it is requested to dismissed the present writ petition. 5. 4.1 It is further submitted by Shri M.R Bhatt, learned counsel for the Revenue that even in the present case, the reopening of assessment is within a period of four years. 4.2 Making the above submissions, it is requested to dismissed the present writ petition. 5. Having heard learned counsel Shri Manish R Bhatt appearing on behalf of the Revenue and considering the submissions made in the petition and the earlier order passed by this Court on 3rd November 2015, in which the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner-assessee are recorded, and the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment for A.Y. 2010-2011, it appears that the assessment for A.Y. 2010-2011 is sought to be reopened on the ground that the petitioner had claimed depreciation at the higher rate i.e., 30% instead of eligible normal rate of depreciation i.e., 15%. However, it is required to be noted that the entire aspect with respect to the depreciation claimed by the assessee at the rate of 30% was gone into by the Assessing Officer at the time of scrutiny assessment. A specific query was raised by the Assessing Officer in the notice under Section 142 [1] of the Act; more particularly, in Item No. 28 thereof. Item No. 28 was with respect to the claim of 30% depreciation, as against the regular depreciation claimed by the assessee. The assessee replied to the same and thereafter, the Assessing Officer dealt with the said issue and while passing the scrutiny assessment, accepted the claim of the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the subsequent reopening of the assessment on the aforesaid ground can be said to be a change of opinion by the subsequent Assessing Officer. 5.1 As per the catena of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court, merely on the change of opinion of the subsequent officer, reopening of assessment is not permissible. Under the circumstances, on the aforesaid ground alone, the impugned Notice under Section 148 of the Act and the impugned reopening of the assessment for A.Y. 2010-2011 deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons aforestated, the petition succeeds. Impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 28th April 2014 and the reopening of the assessment for A.Y. 2010-2011 dated 19th September 2014 are hereby quashed and set-aside. Rule nisi made absolute. No cost.