ORDER : (Munnuri Laxman, J.) : 1) The present writ petition has been filed challenging the notice dated 26.03.2015 issued under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and notice dated 04.08.2015 issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2) The case of the writ petitioner is that the petitioner is an assessee with the Income Tax Department and he filed Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2008-2009 on 31.03.2009 declaring interest income of Rs.2,09,636/- and income from agriculture of Rs.95,563/- showing no income under the head ‘Capital Gain’. Subsequently, he realised bona fide mistake in the return with regard to capital gain and he filed an amended return disclosing the capital gains of Rs.33,52,753 claiming deduction of Rs.2,50,000/- under Section 54-F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) in the course of assessment proceedings and an amount of Rs.34,00,000/- was deposited in the FDR under capital gains scheme. The assessee received capital gain of Rs.37,75,099/- as the compensation in the land acquisition proceedings. 3) The Assessment Officer after due enquiry has passed the assessment order dated 07.12.2010 after issuing the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. In the said assessment order, it has been clearly mentioned that the Assessment Officer has verified with the Bank and sought a clarification from the assessee with regard to FDR prepared by the assessee under the capital gains scheme, which was not utilized for the prescribed purpose within the stipulated time and he was only liable for payment of tax for the assessment year 2011-2012. In the year 2011-2012, the assessee has paid capital gain tax. Subsequently, audit objection dated 10.02.2015 was taken with regard to non-payment of capital gain tax for the assessment year 2008-2009 and such objection was taken after 6 years. 4) Basing on the above objection, notice dated 26.03.2015 was issued under Section 147 read with 148 of the Act. After service of notice, the assessee obtained reasons for issuing such a notice and the reasons recorded under order dt. 27.02.2015 do not disclose the basis for issuance of notice dated 26.03.2015. Such a decision was on account of change of opinion or re-appreciation of evidence or material, which was already been considered in the regular assessments year. After service of notice, the assessee obtained reasons for issuing such a notice and the reasons recorded under order dt. 27.02.2015 do not disclose the basis for issuance of notice dated 26.03.2015. Such a decision was on account of change of opinion or re-appreciation of evidence or material, which was already been considered in the regular assessments year. 5) In response to the notice dated 26.03.2015, the assesee filed the objections, which were not properly considered and such objections were rejected vide order 26.06.2015. Subsequently, further representation dated 06.07.2015 was made to the Assessing Officer bringing to the notice of improper consideration of the questions raised by the assessee in the first objections. Such representation was also rejected vide order dated 04.08.2015. Consequently, further notice dated 04.08.2015 was issued under Section 143(2) of the Act. Challenging the said notice dt. 04.08.2015 as well as notice dt. 26.03.2015, the present writ petition has been filed. 6) The main grounds raised in the present writ petition is that the notice issued under Section 147 read with 148 of the Act was time barred. The second contention raised was that the reasons, which were the foundation for issuance of notice under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act were not the result of any fresh information or fresh gathering of the material, but it is the change of opinion or re-appreciation of material which is already on record and there is no suppression or concealment of any facts. Therefore, on these two grounds, the impugned notices are liable to be quashed. 7) The learned counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department vehemently opposed the claim of the writ petitioner that notices are barred by limitation. According to him, four year limitation applies only in case all the materials are fully and truly placed before the Assessing Officer, which are necessary for assessment of the relevant assessment year. In the present case, the assessee has not placed true material necessary for assessment but he suppressed the fact that the fixed deposit maintained with the Bank was not with the capital gain scheme. Therefore, the limitation of 4 year do not apply. It is also his contention that the reasons preceded to the notice are well founded. In the present case, the assessee has not placed true material necessary for assessment but he suppressed the fact that the fixed deposit maintained with the Bank was not with the capital gain scheme. Therefore, the limitation of 4 year do not apply. It is also his contention that the reasons preceded to the notice are well founded. The audit has closely scrutinized the material on record and found that there was no true material made available to the Assessing Officer for the relevant assessment year with regard to deposit of FDR in the capital gains scheme. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merit and he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 8) In the background of the above contention, it is apt to refer to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which reads as follows:- “Income escaping assessment. 147. If any income chargeable to tax, in the case of an assessee, has escaped assessment for any assessment year, the Assessing Officer may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year). Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or the section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee 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 to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year: Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply in a case where any income in relation to any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India, chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment for any assessment year. Provided also that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income, other than the income involving matters which are the subject matters of any appeal, reference or revision, which is chargeable to tax and has escaped assessment. 9) The first proviso to Section 147 of the Act restricts the action to be taken after expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. However, it has exception. In order to fall under the exception, any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the assessment year by reason of failure on the part of the assessee-(i) to make a return under Section 139 or (ii) no response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of Section 142 or Section 148; (iii) failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment of the relevant assessment year. 10) The facts in the present case disclose that in the initial return filed by the assessee, there was no mention of acquisition of capital gains. However, in the same assessment proceedings for the relevant assessment year, a revised return has been filed showing the capital gains of Rs.33,52,753/- and Rs.2,50,000/- was claimed to be utilized under Section 54F of the Act so also Rs.34,00,000/- was deposited in the FDR under the capital gains scheme. Such a capital gains was received by way of compensation of Rs.37,75,099/- in an acquisition proceedings. In response to such original return and amended return, assessment order was passed on 07.12.2010 with the following conclusion:- “On verification from the bank and seeking clarification from the assesee, it was gathered that the FDR prepared by the assessee under the capital gains scheme was not utilized for the prescribed purpose within the stipulated time. In view of these facts, though on the basis of investment of Rs.2,50,000/- in construction and Rs.34,00,000/- in preparation of FDR under capital gains scheme, the assessee will not be liable of capital gain this year but the assessee is liable for payment of tax in the assessment year 2011-2012, as calculated in the manner mentioned above.” 11) It is not in dispute that all the facts relating to receipt of capital gains and deposit of FDR were made available to the Assessing Officer. The assessment order dated 07.12.2010 clearly shows that the Assessing Officer had verified with the bank, in which the FDR was obtained and also sought clarification from the assessee and satisfied with the FDR prepared by the assessee under the capital gains scheme, however, it was not utilized for the prescribed purpose within the stipulated time. Therefore, he ordered the liability of tax in the assessment year 2011-2012. Indisputably, in the assessment year 2011-2012, the assessee has paid tax on capital gains in terms of observations made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order dt. 07.12.2010. 12) The root cause for issuance of impugned notices was on account of audit objection dated 10.02.2015. The objection was on account of noticing the non-drawing of the FDR under the capital gains scheme with the nationalized bank. It is the case of the assessee that initially, FDR was obtained in a regular format with a bona fide mistake not under the capital gains scheme. Subsequently, on realisation of mistake, he has rightly obtained the FDR under the capital gains scheme and the same was a foundation for consideration in the assessment proceedings. In fact, the Assessing Officer for the relevant assessment year has obtained the clarification from the bank and found that assessment was not utilized on account of capital gains scheme. There was improper utilization within the permitted period. Therefore, liability was fixed only for the assessment year 2011-2012. Accordingly, the assessee also paid tax during this assessment year. 13) The extended limitation under the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act would apply to the cases where there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for assessment of the relevant assessment year. The assessment proceedings and the nature of facts disclose by the assessee clearly show that he has disclosed the acquisition of capital gains and drawing of the FDR. Such FDR was also verified by the Assessing Officer with the bank. There is no failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing the material facts necessary for the relevant assessment year. Therefore, invocation of present petition is barred by first proviso to Section 147 of the Act. 14) The second ground raised by the assessee is that there is no proper reason which led to issuance of notice dated 26.03.2015. There is no failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing the material facts necessary for the relevant assessment year. Therefore, invocation of present petition is barred by first proviso to Section 147 of the Act. 14) The second ground raised by the assessee is that there is no proper reason which led to issuance of notice dated 26.03.2015. The reasons for the issuance of notice were recorded under order dated 27.02.2015 (Annexure-5). A glance of the reasons under Annexure-5 discloses that there were no fresh facts received which could not be made available earlier on account of concealment of any material facts by the assessee and it appears to be a change of opinion on re-appreciation of evidence or material, which facts were already furnished by the assessee during his regular assessment process. Therefore, on this count also, the writ petition is liable to be allowed. 15) In the result, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned notices dt. 26.03.2015 and 27.02.2015 are hereby quashed.