JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the files of the Respondent in PAN:AAFCA8363E and quash the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax act, 1961 in ITBA/AST/S/148/2017-18/1009425411(1) dated 26.03.2018 passed by the 1st respondent and consequential proceedings in PAN:AAFCA8363E/AY 2013-14 dated 01.11.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent as illegal and without jurisdiction.) 1. The petitioner is assessed under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act'). In respect of the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14, the petitioner filed a return of income that was selected for scrutiny. Notices were issued thereafter, calling for various particulars under notice dated 12.01.2016 issued under Section 142(1) of the Act, wherein point No.10 specifically sought details of school cost written off. 2. Vide reply dated 27.01.2016, the petitioner states as follows: Point No.10) details of school cost written off : Note enclosed Arun Excello group has started the Integrated Township Project at Vallanchery consisting of Residential construction, IT Park and Commercial activity. To meet the requirements of the Residents the Company has constructed the Vidya Mandir school. Those who own a flat in Estancia will be given preference in the school admission at Vidya Mandhir. The school has been constructed at a total cost of Rs.20.96 crores. The school is run with the non-profit motive. The write off has started from the Financial Year 2011-2012. For the financial year 2013-2014 a sum of Rs.1.54 crores has been written off and charged to profit and loss account. The write off is on the sales area completed proportionate to the total sale area of the project.' 3. After due enquiry, an order of assessment was passed under scrutiny on 28.03.2016 accepting the claim for write off. That the return comprises particulars of school cost as well as write off, duly noticed by the Assessing Officer, a specific query had been raised in that regard and a detailed reply filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer, are not in doubt. 4. The fact that the assessment had been taken up for scrutiny and completed under the provisions of Section 143(3) will also stand testimony to the fact that there has been application of mind by the Assessing Officer on the points that were noted by him prior to the completion of assessment. 5. 4. The fact that the assessment had been taken up for scrutiny and completed under the provisions of Section 143(3) will also stand testimony to the fact that there has been application of mind by the Assessing Officer on the points that were noted by him prior to the completion of assessment. 5. While this is so, a notice came to be issued for re-assessment under Section 148 and the assessee, after filing a return of income in compliance thereof, sought reasons for re-assessment. The reasons substantially extracted the contents of the response dated 27.01.2016 filed by the assessee in response to the query raised at the time of assessment 6. That apart, the reasons of the officer, at paragraph 2, state as follows: 2. On verification of records, it is seen that the assessee had debited the following amounts towards “school cost written off” in the profit and loss accounts in respect of AY 12-13 to 14-15 as follows: Asst. Year Amount written off 2012-13 39807410 2013-14 13871054 2014-15 15444421 The assessee has started the integrated township at Guduvanchery consisting of residential construction, IT park and commercial activity. As seen from the records, it is ascertained by audit that the school Vidya Mandir was built by the assessee to meet the requirements of the residents. The school has been constructed at a total cost of Rs.20.96 crores. The write off has started from financial year 2011-12. For the financial year 2013-14 a sum of Rs.1.54 crores has been written off and charged to P&L account. The write off is on the sales area completed to the total sale area of the project. The building has been handed over to Vidya Mandir management trust. The school is fully run by the Vidya Mandir management trust and the books of account are maintained by the Vidya Mandir school. The assessee is not receiving any income from the school activity and is receiving sum of Rs.1 per month as rent from the school management. As the total cost covers the entire area of 33,92285 sq.ft. Every year proportionate amount of the school cost is written off. The balance amount of Rs.14.04 crores is kept under other non-current assets in the balance sheet. Though the school is run by the Vidya mandir trust the school is owned by the assessee. This is evident from the fact that the assessee is receiving the rent. Every year proportionate amount of the school cost is written off. The balance amount of Rs.14.04 crores is kept under other non-current assets in the balance sheet. Though the school is run by the Vidya mandir trust the school is owned by the assessee. This is evident from the fact that the assessee is receiving the rent. Also the school building is included in the non-current asset. Hence write off of the school cost is not in order and a sum of Rs.13871054/- requires to be added back to the income of the assessee for the Asst. Year 2013-14. It is pertinent to mention that in this case an assessment was made as stipulated u/s 2(40) of the Act. However, as discussed in reason to believe in this case: Income chargeable to tax has been under assessed by an amount in excess of Rs.1,38,71,054/- In view of the above facts, the provisions of clause (c) of explanations 2 to Section 147 are applicable to facts of this case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be a case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. This case is within four years from the end of the assessment year under consideration. Hence necessary sanction to issue the notice u/e 148 has been obtained separately from Additional Commissioner of Income Tax as per the provisions of section 151 of the Act.' 7. Thus, the officer specifically records that there has been a debit of the school cost in the profit and loss accounts in respect of three years, i.e., A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. Admittedly, no proceedings for re-assessment has been taken in respect of 2012-13 and 2014-15. This, by itself, would vitiate the proceedings, since consistency of approach has to be the basis of any proceedings to address escapement of tax. 8. Seeing as the issue spans three years, it was necessary for the Department, if at all it had been serious in the matter, to have taken a uniform and concerted approach to block the leakage for all the years in question. This, in my view, is a vital flaw by itself vitiating the impugned re-assessment proceedings. 9. That apart, the only legal reason that has been set out justifying the re-assessment is a reference to clause (c) of Explanation (2) to Section 147. Explanation (2) deems certain situations where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. This, in my view, is a vital flaw by itself vitiating the impugned re-assessment proceedings. 9. That apart, the only legal reason that has been set out justifying the re-assessment is a reference to clause (c) of Explanation (2) to Section 147. Explanation (2) deems certain situations where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Clause (c) deals with a situation where an assessment has been made, but (i) income chargeable to tax has been under-assessed; or (ii) such income has been assessed at too low a rate; or (iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act; or (iv) excessive loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed. 10. Thus, it is the Department's case that income chargeable to tax has been under assessed. However, in the present case, the under assessment, if at all, would not really stand the scrutiny or test of law, insofar as this issue has not escaped the attention of the Assessing Officer at the first instance. 11. However, having noticed the issue, raised a specific query, received a reply and thereafter passed an order of assessment, a clear opinion has formed by the Assessing Officer in regard to the vitality of the assessee's claim. In such an event, the impugned re-assessment proceedings are nothing but a review in the guise of re-assessment, which is impermissible in law. 12. I draw support in this regard from the celebrated decision of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V. Kelvinator India Ltd. (256 ITR 1) that settles the proposition that re-assessment must be based on new and tangible material that has come to the note of the Assessing Authority after completion of the original assessment. 13. In the present case, a perusal of the reasons would indicate clearly that there is nothing new and it is, in fact, the very note filed by the assessee as well as material that was available on record that has been invoked by the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment. The counter filed by the Department makes a lukewarm attempt to defend the impugned proceedings by stating that only a 'half page note' had been filed by the assessee which would not suffice. 14. In my considered view, this defence is only stated to be rejected. The counter filed by the Department makes a lukewarm attempt to defend the impugned proceedings by stating that only a 'half page note' had been filed by the assessee which would not suffice. 14. In my considered view, this defence is only stated to be rejected. It is not the length of the note that would determine the integrity of the procedure, but the contents thereof as well as other tests, such as, whether new or tangible material that has come to the possession of the Department. Since respondents have failed in the test as aforesaid, the brevity of the note does not come to their rescue. 15. In light of the above discussion, impugned notice dated 26.03.2018 and consequential proceedings dated 01.11.2018 are set aside and this Writ Petition allowed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.