ORDER : BIREN VAISHNAV, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Nikunt Raval, learned advocate appearing for the respondent waives service of notice of rule. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. 2. By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the notice dated 30.03.2018 issued by the respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act” for short). 3. Facts in brief are as under: 3.1 The petitioner is a public limited Company. The petitioner filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2011-12 on 30.11.2011 declaring total loss at Rs. 152,86,90,736/- under the normal provisions and book profit u/s. 115JB of Rs. 282,23,09,975/- The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) were issued and served upon the petitioner from time to time. Subsequently, the petitioner filed the revised return on 29.03.2013, declaring total loss at Rs. 158,69,36,490/- under the normal provisions and book profit u/s. 282,23,09,975/-. The case of the Petitioner was selected for scrutiny assessment by issuing notice u/s. 143(2) and notice u/s. 142(1) with detailed questionnaire was issued. The authorized representative ("AR" for short) of the petitioner attended the case from time to time and furnished details as per requirements. After satisfying the Assessing Officer has passed assessment order u/s 143(3) on 16.04.2015. 3.2 The respondent issued the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2018 reopening the assessment for the A.Y. 2011-12. Reasons for reopening were supplied vide letter dated 25.06.2018. On perusal of the copy of reasons, it appears that the Assessing Officer had initiated reassessment on belief that the petitioner had suppressed its total income by claiming excess depreciation allowance of Rs. 2,70,61,593/-. 3.3 The petitioner raised various objections, on merits and requested the respondent to drop the reassessment proceedings vide letter dated 04.07.2018. Vide letter dated 11.09.2018, the respondent disposed of the objections. The petitioner raised further objections in response to the said order and once again requested the respondent to drop the reassessment proceedings vide letter dated 19.09.2018. 4. Mr. B.S. Soparkar, learned counsel for the petitioner would make the following submissions. 4.1 That there has been no failure to disclose truly and fully all material particulars. The petitioner raised further objections in response to the said order and once again requested the respondent to drop the reassessment proceedings vide letter dated 19.09.2018. 4. Mr. B.S. Soparkar, learned counsel for the petitioner would make the following submissions. 4.1 That there has been no failure to disclose truly and fully all material particulars. Merely because there is reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment is not sufficient to reopen the assessment beyond a period of four years. The escapement must have been as a result of failure to disclose fully and truly all the material facts. The facts of the present case would indicate that there was no such failure. 4.2 The revenue’s perception is that as per the depreciation chart furnished at Annexure F of the 3CD report, it is evident that the assessee company had claimed excess depreciation against allowable depreciation. It is therefore apparent that having relied on the annexure of the report of the petitioner, there was no fresh and tangible material for the revenue to hold that the income of the assessee needs to be reassessed. 4.3 Mr. Soparkar further submitted that specific questions regarding the claim of depreciation were raised and the same were answered by the assessee. The AO now cannot change his opinion and seek to reassess. In support of his submissions Mr Soparkar would rely on the communication dated 13.10.2014 issued by the revenue in context of the scrutiny assessment and the questionnaire which had asked for certain details. A specific question was framed asking as to why higher depreciation should be allowed on motor vehicles which is claimed in working out depreciation as per Income Tax Act,1961. He would submit that a detailed submission was made. A note on higher depreciation claimed on Motor Vehicles was submitted. He would therefore submit that the exercise of reassessment was bad. 4.4 That even otherwise no income had escaped assessment and also the notice was issued on the basis of audit objections which is not found acceptable by the respondent. The reasons to believe cannot be substituted by the objections received from the audit department. 5. Mr. Nikunt Raval, learned counsel for the revenue would submit that the assessee by claiming excess depreciation had its total income. The assessing office after detailed examination has recorded satisfaction that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 5.1 Mr. The reasons to believe cannot be substituted by the objections received from the audit department. 5. Mr. Nikunt Raval, learned counsel for the revenue would submit that the assessee by claiming excess depreciation had its total income. The assessing office after detailed examination has recorded satisfaction that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 5.1 Mr. Raval, learned counsel would submit that on verification of the Annexure F to the audit report, it was evident that there was no description and the printing suggested that there was no full and true disclosure. On verification of Annexure F, it is found that the assessee has not quantified the additional depreciation @ 10% on the eligible assets purchased in the preceding previous years and has made passing remarks without substantiating its claim. There was therefore no full and true disclosure on the claim of additional depreciation of 10%. 5.2 Mr. Raval, learned counsel would submit that in the year under consideration i.e AY 2011-12, the assessee had claimed balance additional depreciation @10% on the new assets being plant and machinery put to use for a period of less than 180 days in preceding year 2009-10. As per Section 32(1)(iia), the assessee is entitled to get additional deprecaition @20% on new plant and machinery, however, as per second proviso to Section 32(1), the depreciation on such new assets if put to use for less that 180 days would be restricted to 50% of the normal rate of depreciation. The petitioner is not entitled to get the remaining additional depreciation on new plant and machineries put to use for less than 180 days in the preceding previous year. 6. Considering these submissions, the perusal of reasons to believe indicate that on verification of Annexure “F” of the Tax Audit Report and the notes thereto, it was found that the assessee had not quantified the amount of additional depreciation @ 10% on the eligible assets purchased in the preceding year and had made passing remarks without substantiating its claim. What is evident is that the claim for reopening the assessment has been based on the very annexure of the audit report which was available to the revenue in the exercise that was carried out during the scrutiny assessment. What is evident is that the claim for reopening the assessment has been based on the very annexure of the audit report which was available to the revenue in the exercise that was carried out during the scrutiny assessment. The reason to believe therefore cannot be said to be based on any new of fresh tangible material and cannot therefore be used as a tool to reopen the assessment proceedings. 7. What is also evident from the exercise of the scrutiny assessment carried out in the case of the petitioner is that the assessee has been claiming additional depreciation at the rate of 20% on the eligible plant and machinery by virtue of the provisions of Section 32(1(iia). The assessment has been reopened beyond a period of four years and it is not a case where it can be said that the assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. 7.1 The tax audit report specifically stated that the balance of additional depreciation pertaining to eligible assets has been claimed and a schedule was annexed. A detailed questionnaire was sent to the petitioner which was answered including the question on the claim of depreciation. 8. During the course of assessment proceedings as pointed out by Mr. Soparkar, learned advocate for the assessee in para 7 of the questionnaire dated 13.10.2014, details were specifically asked for in addition to fixed assets and documentary evidence in respect to additions so made to all assets. A specific query was raised into the claim made by the petitioner on higher depreciation on motor vehicle under section 32 of the Act. 9. All these lead to a circumstance to suggest that during the course of original proceedings, the claim of the depreciation allowance as made by the Assessing Officer was examined and after considering the Return of Income, Tax Audit Report and other submissions to the questionnaire that the Assessing Officer had restricted his exercise only to the issue of allowability of higher depreciation on motor vehicle. Moreover, if in the perception of the Assessing Officer, the report was wanting for details then information could have been called for but couldn't have been taken as a cue for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 10. Moreover, if in the perception of the Assessing Officer, the report was wanting for details then information could have been called for but couldn't have been taken as a cue for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 10. For all the aforesaid reasons, the notice issued by the respondent under Section 148 dated 30.03.2018 and the consequential order disposing off objections are quashed and set aside. Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute.