JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned notice dated 31.03.2017 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), whereby the authority has sought to reopen the assessment for assessment year 2010-11. 2. The petitioner is engaged in the business of providing clinical research solutions to the pharmaceutical industries. The petitioner filed return of income for the year under consideration on 07.10.2010 declaring total income at Rs.10,58,750/- after claiming deduction of Rs.30,64,30,785/- under section 80-IB(8A) of the Act. The petitioner's case was selected for scrutiny assessment and various details and information were called for by the then Assessing Officer and the same were duly furnished by the petitioner. By notice dated 12.11.2012 the then Assessing Officer called upon the to furnish details pertaining to activities of the petitioner. In response thereto, the petitioner furnished a reply, which also contained a note pertaining to the activities of the petitioner. The claim of deduction under section 80-IB(8A) of the Act of the petitioner was also examined. 3. After examining all the details, the then Assessing Officer, while framing assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, consciously chose to make disallowance of mere Rs.9,82,226/- under section 80-IB(8A) of the Act on the score that income to the extent of Rs.9,82,226/- was not earned from the eligible business activities. The impugned notice dated 31.03.2017 came to be issued by the respondent under section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen the case of the petitioner for the year under consideration. The petitioner vide letter dated 01.04.2017 requested the respondent to supply copy of reasons recorded for reopening and vide letter dated 17.04.2017 requested the respondent to treat the original return of income as return filed in response to notice issued under section 148 of the Act. 4. By the communication dated 05.04.2017, the respondent supplied copy of the reasons recorded for reopening the case of the petitioner which indicate that the case of the petitioner has been reopened broadly on the count that the income of the petitioner is not eligible for claim of deduction under section 80-IB(8A) of the Act since the petitioner is providing professional services of research to its clients, which do not lead to any technology development. Further, it mentions that if the petitioner had developed any new technology, it would have sold or transferred such technology to its clients instead of receiving professional charges. It is mentioned that since the clients of the petitioner are deducting tax at source on the payments made to it, therefore, the amount received by the petitioner is professional income and the same is not eligible for claiming deduction under section 80-IB(8A), hence, income to the extent of Rs.30,54,48,559/- has escaped assessment for the year under consideration. 5. The petitioner vide letter dated 20.04.2017 raised objections against reopening the case of the petitioner. It was categorically pointed out in such objections that – (i) reopening is beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and there is no failure on the part of the petitioner as to full and true disclosure; (ii) reopening is based on change of opinion; (iii) even on merits, the petitioner is eligible for deduction under section 80-IB(8A) of the Act; and (iv) reopening is based on audit objection. Thus, it was submitted that reopening is not justified and accordingly, the reopening proceedings may be dropped. However, the respondent vide order dated 24.08.2017 disposed of the objections raised by the petitioner and, inter alia, held that the reopening the case of the petitioner is valid. Hence, the said action of the respondent gives rise to filing of the present petition. 6. Learned Advocate Mr. Tushar Hemani for Ms.Vaibhavi Parikh for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case the income chargeable to tax has not escaped assessment as the petitioner has fully and truly disclosed all material facts necessary for his assessment for the year under consideration. He has contended that the claim of deduction under section 80-IB(8A) of the Act is evident from the return of income. Accordingly, the audit report for the purpose of claiming deduction is also obtained and the Assessing Officer while framing the original assessment had called for all details of the activities of the petitioner. Mr.Hemani has invited the attention of this court to the Form No.3CD which is a format of statement of particulars to be furnished under section 44AB of the Act. He has pointed out column No.7(b) wherein the particulars relating to nature of business or profession are to be supplied. Mr.Hemani has invited the attention of this court to the Form No.3CD which is a format of statement of particulars to be furnished under section 44AB of the Act. He has pointed out column No.7(b) wherein the particulars relating to nature of business or profession are to be supplied. The petitioner in response has specifically mentioned “to carry on business of providing Clinical Research Service to the Pharmaceutical Industry". It is also contended that the petitioner had furnished all the details about the activities of the Company as demanded by the Assessing Officer vide notice dated 12.11.2012, and the claim of the deduction under section 80-IB(8A) of the Act was also examined, which culminated in to the disallowance of Rs.9,82,226/-. In view of the said factual position, Mr.Hemani has submitted that the action of reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act is merely based on change of opinion and the same is not tenable in the eye of law. He has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Cliantha Research Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad, reported in [2013] 35 taxmann.com 61 (Gujarat), for the proposition of law that merely because a certain element was not in a mind of the Assessing Officer while accepting a claim was processed at length, the same cannot be a ground for issuing a notice for reassessment. 7. Learned Advocate Mr.Hemani has also further submitted that the petitioner fulfills all the conditions of section 80-IB(8A) of the Act. One of the conditions for claiming deduction is that the assessee must be approved by the “Prescribed authority” i.e. “The Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Ministry of Science and Industrial Research, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India". He has submitted that the petitioner is duly granted approval from such prescribed authority vide Letter dated 22.10.2003, hence the Assessing Officer cannot form his opinion on the activities of the petitioner for the purpose of deduction under section 80-IB(8A) of the Act. 8. The aforesaid submissions are resisted by learned Senior Advocate Mr. M.R. Bhatt for the Revenue. He has submitted that the petitioner is duly granted approval from such prescribed authority vide Letter dated 22.10.2003, hence the Assessing Officer cannot form his opinion on the activities of the petitioner for the purpose of deduction under section 80-IB(8A) of the Act. 8. The aforesaid submissions are resisted by learned Senior Advocate Mr. M.R. Bhatt for the Revenue. He has submitted that the petitioner is not eligible for deduction under section 80-IB(8A) of the Act as subsequently it was noticed that the petitioner was providing professional services to the clients for scientific and industrial research and development since the clients of the petitioner are also deducting TDS on the payment made to it as professional charges. He has asserted that the petitioner is not carrying its activities in scientific and industrial research and development, which is the principal requirement for claiming deduction. Mr.Bhatt has further submitted that though the petitioner has disclosed its activities and claimed deduction but it has suppressed the true nature of its income and has misled the authorities as it was providing the professional service, therefore, notice under section 148 of the Act is correctly and legally issued. Distinguishing the judgment cited by the petitioner in the case of Cliantha Research Ltd. (supra), Mr.Bhatt has submitted that the same would not apply in the present case since the Assessing Officer has not inquired into the true nature of the activities carried out by the petitioner. 9. We have considered the rival contentions advanced by the learned advocates for the parties to the lis. 10. Unquestionably, the reopening is beyond a period of four years, and hence the same is permissible if an income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to make to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. The bare perusal of reasons recorded for reopening in the letter 05.04.2017 reveals that the assessment is reopened for the reason that the petitioner is providing professional service of research to their clients, which is not leading to technology development. 11. During the course of original assessment, the Assessing Officer under his notice dated 12.11.2012 raised several queries pertaining to the petitioner's return of income, one of which was to furnish the detailed activities of the company. 11. During the course of original assessment, the Assessing Officer under his notice dated 12.11.2012 raised several queries pertaining to the petitioner's return of income, one of which was to furnish the detailed activities of the company. In response to the notice, the petitioner conveyed to the Assessing Officer as under: "4.Activities of the company : We are a Clinical Research Organization recognized as a Research & Development unit recognized by Ministry of Science & Technology, Government of India. We provide clinical trial services for testing efficacy and safety of new drugs to pharmaceutical companies - both local and international. The testing of drug may be at different phase - phase I to phase IV and bio-availability. We provide a comprehensive service package comprising of clinic, analysis of samples and preparation of reports. Usually, clinical trial of a new drug is carried out after taking approval of the protocol by the Drug Controller General of India. If a drug is in the market for more than four years, the approval is not required. Protocol lays down the design of the entire study. The same is prepared by experts based on regulatory requirements, characteristics of drug and statistical sampling techniques. Clinic phase comprise of giving agreed doze of the drug at the stipulated timing and drawing blood samples at intervals stipulated by the protocol. This phase is supervised by specialized doctors. Analytical phase comprises of testing of blood samples by highly sensitive equipments to measure the presence of drug in the blood at different time intervals. Based on the clinical and sample analysis data, a report is prepared and is the basis of regulatory approval for marketing / manufacturing of drugs by the sponsoring pharmaceutical companies. We quote our fees based on the study design, length of study, nature of services offered and number of volunteers on whom the drug is to be tested. We raise invoices based on milestones of activities completed." 12. After examining all the details, the Assessing Officer, by the assessment order dated 24.04.2014 consciously chose to make disallowance of Rs.9,82,226/- under section 80-IB(8A) of the Act holding that the income to the extent of Rs.9,82,226/- was not earned from the eligible business activities. We raise invoices based on milestones of activities completed." 12. After examining all the details, the Assessing Officer, by the assessment order dated 24.04.2014 consciously chose to make disallowance of Rs.9,82,226/- under section 80-IB(8A) of the Act holding that the income to the extent of Rs.9,82,226/- was not earned from the eligible business activities. It is pertinent note that the Assessing Officer while reworking the deduction has observed that “The detailed scrutiny of the claim of the assessee revealed that while claiming the deduction the assessee has not excluded the “notice pay income” and “other income” of Rs.9,62,549/- and Rs.18,677/- being not eligible for deduction under section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. The said observation belies the contention of the department that no detailed analysis was done by the Assessing Officer in the original scrutiny in relation to the activities carried out by the petitioner. As observed in the preceding paragraphs, the petitioner had supplied all the details of the activities in response to the notice dated 12.11.2012. Thus, it can be assumed that the claim of the petitioner was processed in detail. The assessment cannot be reopened by forming an opinion that the activities carried on by the petitioner was professional service of research not leading to technology development only on the basis that the Assessing Officer failed to raise a particular question to that effect. It will be apposite to take note of observations made in the judgment rendered in similar set of facts in the case of Cliantha Research Ltd. (supra). The same are quoted as under: "17. From the above it can be seen that the petitioners claim for deduction under Section 80IB(8A) of the Act came for detailed scrutiny by the Assessing Officer in the original scrutiny assessment. Series of queries were raised by the Assessing Officer. All such questions were answered at length by the assessee. He filed several replies before the Assessing Officer. Only after considering such replies and documents accompanying such replies, Assessing Officer framed the assessment in such assessment order. He disallowed only a small portion of the petitioners claim for deduction. To the extent the petitioner had claimed deduction for sample storage income, the same was disallowed, rest of the claim was accepted. Only after considering such replies and documents accompanying such replies, Assessing Officer framed the assessment in such assessment order. He disallowed only a small portion of the petitioners claim for deduction. To the extent the petitioner had claimed deduction for sample storage income, the same was disallowed, rest of the claim was accepted. By no stretch of imagination, can it be stated that the claim under Section 80IB(8A) of the Act was not examined by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment. Entire claim was thoroughly and painstakingly scrutinized. His queries were not restricted to sample storage income alone. For example, in his communication dated 21.10.2009 he called upon the petitioner to furnish details of transactions with various companies, such as M/s Cadila Healthcare Ltd., Lupin Ltd. Etc. These are the companies with whom the petitioner had entered into detailed agreements for carrying out scientific research. In paragraph 4 of such notice, he called upon the petitioner to furnish note on claim of deduction under Section 80IB(8A) of the Act to produce necessary evidence in support of such claim. He also directed the petitioner to furnish note on how all the conditions laid down under Rule 18DA were fulfilled." 13. The earlier claim of deduction was examined and processed after calling for detailed explanation from the petitioner, and the same was accepted after forming an opinion on the activities carried out by the Company. There was no failure on the part of the petitioner as to full and true disclosure. The aforesaid analysis unveils that the reopening the petitioner's case for reassessment under section 147 of the Act is based on change of opinion and hence, the same is not justifiable as per the settled position of law. 14. Since we are inclined to set aside the impugned notice on the issue of change of opinion, we need not examine the other contentions raised by the petitioner. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned notice dated 31.03.2017 is hereby quashed and set aside.