JUDGMENT : HARSHA DEVANI, J. 1. Rule. Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent. 2. Having regard to the controversy involved in the present case, which lies in a very narrow compass, and with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the notice dated 25.3.2017 issued by the respondent under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 4. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on the business of manufacturing machinery parts, articles and job work as per drawing and specifications supplied to it. The petitioner filed its return of income for assessment year 2011-12 on 30.4.2012 declaring total income of Rs.3,29,63,510/-. The Assessing Officer called for and examined the necessary evidence and completed regular assessment under section 143(3) of the Act on 4.3.2014 on a total income of Rs.3,34,19,536/-. Subsequently, the respondent has issued the impugned notice dated 25.3.2017 under section 148 of the Act, proposing to reassess the total income of the petitioner for assessment year 2011-12. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted a letter dated 10.4.2017 stating that the original return of income filed on 30.4.2012 be treated as return filed in response to the notice and further requested the respondent to furnish a copy of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. By a letter-cum-notice dated 9.5.2017, the respondent intimated the petitioner the portion of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. Subsequently, on 29.8.2017, the petitioner filed its objections to the reopening of assessment, which came to be disposed of by the respondent by an order dated 15.10.2017, whereby he rejected the objections. 5. Mr. S.N. Divetia, learned advocate for the petitioner, invited the attention of the court to the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment to submit that in this case, the notice under section 148 has been issued on 25.3.2017 in relation to assessment year 2011-12, which is clearly beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. S.N. Divetia, learned advocate for the petitioner, invited the attention of the court to the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment to submit that in this case, the notice under section 148 has been issued on 25.3.2017 in relation to assessment year 2011-12, which is clearly beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. It was submitted that in the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer has nowhere mentioned that there is any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment. It was submitted that, therefore, the first proviso to section 147 of the Act would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and in the absence of any failure on the part of the petitioner to fully and truly disclose all relevant facts, the reopening of assessment beyond a period of four years from the end of the assessment year is without jurisdiction. 5.1 Next, it was submitted that the reopening is based upon a mere change of opinion and hence, also the assumption of jurisdiction on the part of the Assessing Officer lacks validity. The attention of the court was invited to the notice dated 7.1.2014 issued by the Assessing Officer under section 142(1) of the Act, to point out that the Assessing Officer had called for details of production incentive expenses, and that in response thereto, the petitioner, vide a letter dated 5.2.2014 had given the details of the expenses. It was pointed out that in the details all the cash payments made by the petitioner had been clearly set out. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer, after considering the same, has not thought it fit to make any addition on this ground and hence, the reopening of assessment is based upon a mere change of opinion and hence also, the impugned notice is unsustainable in law. 6. On the other hand, Mr. M.R. Bhatt, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the petition by reiterating the contents of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent. It was submitted that on the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer was justified in reopening the assessment and that the impugned notice being just, legal and proper, there is no warrant for intervention by this court. 7. It was submitted that on the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer was justified in reopening the assessment and that the impugned notice being just, legal and proper, there is no warrant for intervention by this court. 7. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it would be germane to refer to the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, which read as follows:- "In this case, the assessee e-filed his return of income on 30.04.2012 for A.Y.2011-12 declaring total income of Rs.3,29,63,510/- showing income from manufacturing of Machinery parts, articles and job work. Order u/s.143(3) of the Act was passed on 04.03.2014 for A.Y. 2011-12 determining assessed income of the assessee at Rs.3,34,19,536/-. Production incentive expenses of Rs.25,54,960/- was debited to profit and loss account by the assessee under the head 'other expenses'. The said expenses were paid to various parties. Out of this expenses, payment of Rs.5,69,208/- were made to 8 persons in cash which exceeded Rs.20,000/- per day. As per section 40(3) of the Act, the said payment was required to be disallowed. Hence allowance of these expenses resulted into underassessment of income of Rs.5,69,208/- with short levy of tax of Rs.1,88,196/- + Rs.63,318/- interest. I have therefore reason to believe that the above income of Rs.5,69,208/-, chargeable to tax has escaped from assessment and this is a fit case for issue of notice u/s.148." 8. It is an admitted position that in the present case, the assessment is sought to be reopened beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, and hence, the first proviso to section 147 of the Act would be clearly attracted. Therefore, either of the following two conditions is required to be satisfied for the purpose of reopening the assessment. Firstly, that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on account of failure on the part of the petitioner to make a return under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or secondly that there is failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment, for that assessment year. In the facts of the present case, the first condition is not attracted inasmuch as there is no allegation that the petitioner has failed to file a return, as contemplated in the proviso. In the facts of the present case, the first condition is not attracted inasmuch as there is no allegation that the petitioner has failed to file a return, as contemplated in the proviso. Insofar as the second condition is concerned, on a perusal of the reasons recorded, it is evident that there is not even a whisper therein as regards any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for the assessment nor can any such failure be culled out upon considering the reasons in their entirety. Under the circumstances, the assumption of jurisdiction on the part of the Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Act after a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is without any authority of law. 9. Another aspect of the matter is that the assessment is sought to be reopened on the ground that various expenses were paid, out of which, payment was made in cash to eight persons which was required to be disallowed under section 40A(3) of the Act. A perusal of the documents annexed along with the petition reveals that at the time of the scrutiny assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer had called for details of the expenses incurred by the petitioner, who had duly submitted the same. The statements submitted by the petitioner clearly revealed the payments made in cash to different parties in detail. Evidently, therefore, at the time of the regular assessment, the Assessing Officer had gone into the issue and had not thought it fit to make any disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act. Therefore, the reopening is based upon a mere change of opinion, which also renders the impugned notice unsustainable. 10. For the foregoing reasons on both counts as discussed hereinabove, the impugned notice cannot be sustained. The petition, therefore, succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned notice dated 25.3.2017 under section 148 of the Act for assessment year 2011-12 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly, with no order as to costs.