ORDER : Harsha Devani, J. 1. By this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the appellant revenue has challenged the order dated 23.3.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad "C" Bench (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 1436/Ahd/2015 by proposing the following two questions, stated to be substantial questions of law:- "(A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in holding that re-opening was invalid and there is no need to go into the merit of the case without appreciating the fact that there was no change of opinion as the claim of the assessee was incorrect and not allowable and there was escapement of income? (B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,38,32,680/- in respect of depreciation on Wind Mill without appreciating the fact that the assessee has raised the first Bill No. 15.04.2006 which indicated that the Wind Mill did not start generation before 31.03.2006?" 2. The assessment year is 2006-07 and the corresponding accounting period is the previous year 2005-06. The assessee filed its return of income on 16.12.2006 showing total income at Rs. 9,53,34,670/-. The assessment came to be framed under section 143(3) of the Act on 19.12.2008 determining the total income at Rs. 9,53,46,032/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act on 14.2.2013. In response to the notice, the assessee requested that the return of income filed on 16.12.2006 may be treated as return filed in compliance of the notice. The reasons for reopening the assessment were supplied to the assessee together with a notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 7.11.2013. Thereafter, after considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer passed an order dated 22.11.2013 under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act disallowing depreciation on wind mill amounting to Rs. 3,38,32,680/- as well as additional depreciation on tippers amounting to Rs. 36,24,908/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the appeal. Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal but did not succeed. 3. Mrs. 3,38,32,680/- as well as additional depreciation on tippers amounting to Rs. 36,24,908/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the appeal. Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal but did not succeed. 3. Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Tribunal has observed that since the wind power generation unit had started its production in March, 2006, the assessee is very much entitled for claim of depreciation. It was submitted that the decision of the Tribunal is erroneous as the assessee had raised the first bill on 15.4.2006 which indicates that the wind mill did not start generating electricity before 31.3.2006. The assessee filed a letter from the Superintending Engineer, Tirunelveli, Electricity Distribution Circle, Tirunelveli-11 wherein it was mentioned that 852 units of power was generated till 6.4.2006. It was contended that the Assessing Officer has found that in the said letter, it is nowhere mentioned that there was production of any units till 31.3.2006. It was submitted that the assessee had failed to furnish any evidence in support of its case that electricity was generated prior to 31.3.2006 and that in absence of any such supporting evidence being produced, the Assessing Officer had rightly disallowed the claim of depreciation of wind power generation unit. It was submitted that the Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on wind mill. 4. The facts as emerging from the record indicate that the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment on the ground that the assessee had claimed depreciation on wind power generating unit and that the first bill was raised on 15.4.2006 which according to him was indicative of the fact that the wind mill did not start production of electricity in the month of March, 2006. That there was nothing on record to prove that generation of power started before 31.3.2006 and hence, since wind mill was not put to use before that day, it was not eligible to claim depreciation in that regard. Therefore, income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment as depreciation on wind mill was required to be disallowed. That there was nothing on record to prove that generation of power started before 31.3.2006 and hence, since wind mill was not put to use before that day, it was not eligible to claim depreciation in that regard. Therefore, income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment as depreciation on wind mill was required to be disallowed. The assessee submitted that during the course of scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer had demanded various documents which were duly furnished and after examination and verification, the Assessing Officer had concluded that the wind mill had been commissioned before 31.3.2006 and had allowed the claim for depreciation. Relevant documents were produced on record, including a copy of the meter reading showing energy generated covering the period from 20.3.2006 to 15.4.2006 generated by TNEB for making the first bill. It was contended that the Assessing Officer having scrutinised this issue at the time of regular assessment, the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion. The Assessing officer without dealing with the submissions of the assessee has observed that the assessee has not produced any evidence in support of electricity generated upto 31.3.2006 and disallowed the claim of depreciation of Rs. 3,38,32,680/- and added it to the total income. In assessee's appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has found that the assessee had furnished various evidences to show that both the wind mills were commissioned on 20.3.2006 and started producing power by 31.3.2006 and set aside the disallowance. 5. Insofar as the validity of the reopening is concerned, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the notice was issued on 14.2.2013 which was beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year under consideration. After considering the reasons recorded, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the reopening was done on the basis of the material already on record and there was no material on record to attribute any failure to the assessee and held that the reopening is bad. The Tribunal in the impugned order, upon perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, has referred to the material on record and found thus: ".. Exhibit 15 is the letter addressed to the Assessing Officer on 30.10.2008 during the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings. In the course of the assessment proceedings the assessee furnished entire details of Wind Turbine Generator (Wind Power Mill). Exhibit 15 is the letter addressed to the Assessing Officer on 30.10.2008 during the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings. In the course of the assessment proceedings the assessee furnished entire details of Wind Turbine Generator (Wind Power Mill). Once again on 20.10.2008 the assessee filed another reply before the Assessing Officer which is exhibited at page 73 to 78 of the paper book and explained that NEG Micon (India) Pvt. Ltd. is rendering services in relation to Wind Turbine Generator. Once again the details of the Wind Turbine Generator were furnished details of payments made to NEG Micon (India) Pvt. Ltd. exhibit 115 to 117 is the last letter submitted during the course of the assessment proceedings in which the assessee categorically explained that the two numbers of Wind Turbine Mill has been commissioned satisfactorily on 20.03.2006. It was explained that the initial reading is 20.03.2006 and the date of final reading is 15.04.2006. It was further explained that the first bill has covered power generation period from 20.03.2006 to 15.04.2006 and satisfactorily proved that Wind Power Mill has commissioned on 20.03.2006 and has started generation of power from 20.03.2006 onward. 6. These demonstrating evidences were considered by the Assessing Officer at the time of the original assessment proceedings and allowed the claim of depreciation for the year under consideration." 6. On the basis of such findings recorded by it, the Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment on the false premise that the wind power generation plant was not in operation during the year under consideration was against the documentary evidence examined by the Assessing Officer during the course of original proceedings and upheld the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as regards the ground that the reopening of assessment was invalid. 7. Insofar as the claim of depreciation in respect of wind mill is concerned, the Tribunal has observed that the power generation unit having started its production in March, 2006, the assessee was very much entitled for the claim of depreciation. 8. From the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal, it is evident that during the course of scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer had examined this issue threadbare and had accepted the assessee's submission and allowed the depreciation on wind mill. 8. From the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal, it is evident that during the course of scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer had examined this issue threadbare and had accepted the assessee's submission and allowed the depreciation on wind mill. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) was wholly justified in holding that the reopening was invalid as it was based upon a mere change of opinion. Moreover, the notice under section 148 had been issued beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and the Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded a finding of fact to the effect that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for the year under consideration. On behalf of the appellant nothing has been pointed out to dislodge the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal nor has it been pointed out that the Tribunal has placed reliance upon any irrelevant material or that any relevant material has been ignored. Under the circumstances, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal being based on concurrent findings of fact upon appreciation of the material on record, no infirmity can be found in the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the reopening of assessment was invalid. 9. Insofar as the claim for depreciation is concerned, since the matter stood concluded by the order passed by the Assessing Officer during the course of scrutiny assessment, the question of going into the issue once again did not arise. In any case both, the Tribunal as well as the Commissioner (Appeals), have found that the relevant evidence was produced by the assessee on record to establish that the operation of the wind mill had commenced prior to 31.3.2006 and consequently, the assessee was entitled to depreciation on windmill. 10. In the light of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal, it is not possible to state that the impugned order suffers from any legal infirmity giving rise to any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law, warranting interference. 11. The appeal, therefore, fails and is, accordingly, summarily dismissed.