ORDER : NIRAL R. MEHTA, J. 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought to challenge the Notice dated 31.3.2021 under Section 148 of the Income- Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking, inter-alia, reopening of the assessment for the Assessment Year 2015- 16. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under : 2.1 The petitioner was engaged in e-commerce, information technology and IT enabled services. During the year under consideration, the petitioner had issued shares at premium at Rs.415/- per share. As a result thereof, in the annual account under the head ‘security’s premium’ which was Rs.1,03,58,75,980/- as on 31.3.2014 increased to Rs.2,28,09,76,200/- as on 31.3.2015. Thus, Rs.1,24,51,00,220/- increased in security’s premium. 2.2 The petitioner filed return of income for the year under consideration on 30.11.2015, declaring total loss at Rs.7,26,11,928/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereby, the then Assessing Officer issued notice dated 20.3.2017 under Section 142(1) of the Act. By way of said notice, following information and details were called for : “(i) Complete details (viz. Name, PAN, bank statement, ITR and balance-sheet) of persons to whom shares have been allotted. (ii) Basis of share premium received along with copies of share certificates issued to shareholders. (iii) Board resolution for increase in the share capital of the petitioner.” 2.3 Apropos to the aforesaid notice, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 6.4.2017 along with following details : “(i) Details of shareholders to whom fresh shares have been allotted. (ii) Form PAS-3 filed with the ROC (i.e. Registrar of Companies). (iii) Valuation report for the basis of share premium received in respect of fresh shares allotted. (iv) Board resolution for increase in the share capital of the petitioner.” 2.4 On 31.3.2021, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued by the revenue seeking, inter-alia, to reopen the assessment of the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2015-16. In furtherance thereto, the petitioner filed return of income on 27.4.2021 with a request to supply the reasons recorded for reopening of the case of the petitioner. The reasons recorded for reopening the case were supplied to the petitioner vide letter dated 19.5.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted its objection vide letter dated 30.6.2021. In furtherance thereto, the petitioner filed return of income on 27.4.2021 with a request to supply the reasons recorded for reopening of the case of the petitioner. The reasons recorded for reopening the case were supplied to the petitioner vide letter dated 19.5.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted its objection vide letter dated 30.6.2021. 2.5 The respondent, however, vide order dated 1.3.2022 disposed of the objections and held that the action of reopening of assessment in case of the petitioner for the year under consideration is justified. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner has approached this Court for the appropriate reliefs. 4. We have heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.Tushar Hemani with learned advocate Ms.Vaibhavi Parikh for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Varun K. Patel for the respondent. 5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Tushar Hemani for the petitioner, while challenging the impugned notice, has made the following submissions: (1) Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Hemani submitted that reopening is beyond the period of 4 years and there is no failure on part of the petitioner as to true and full disclosure. To substantiate the aforesaid contention, learned Senior advocate has heavily placed reliance on the various documents such as annual account, notice dated 20.3.2017, letter dated 6.4.2017 and assessment order dated 20.4.2017. In view of aforesaid, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Tushar Hemani submitted that the conditions for reopening beyond the period of 4 years are not satisfied and thereby, the impugned notice deserves to be quashed and set aside. (2) Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Hemani submitted that the reopening is based on merely a change of opinion. He further submitted that the case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny and in that scrutiny, the case of the petitioner was examined thoroughly and at that stage, various documents were produced on record and keeping in mind those documents, order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed. Now, on the same line, notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued which is nothing but a change of opinion. Under the circumstances, according to learned Senior Advocate, once the opinion is formed at the time of assessment at the original stage based on documentary evidence, it will not be permissible for the authority to change its opinion on the same facts and evidence different from that of his predecessor. Under the circumstances, according to learned Senior Advocate, once the opinion is formed at the time of assessment at the original stage based on documentary evidence, it will not be permissible for the authority to change its opinion on the same facts and evidence different from that of his predecessor. Learned Senior advocate Mr.Hemani, therefore, requested this Court to allow the present petition as prayed for. (3) Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Hemani submitted that reopening is not permissible for carrying out fishing and rowing inquiry and/or investigation without there being any specific finding as to escapement of income. Mr.Hemani, therefore, submitted that the assessment sought to be reopened, as can be evident from the reasons recorded, is for the purpose of making inquiry and/or investigation in relation to the issue on hand and that is not permissible as per the settled principle of law. (4) Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Hemani submitted that as is evident from the reasons recorded, reopening is sought on a borrowed satisfaction. To substantiate the same, Mr.Hemani submitted that there is no specific reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer to merely rely upon the information received from the external source which would be termed as ‘borrowed satisfaction’ and thereby, the same is not permissible. 5.1 By making above submissions, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Hemani urged this Court to allow the present petition. 6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Varun K. Patel for the revenue, while opposing this petition, has made following submissions. (1) Mr.Patel, at the outset, vehemently submitted that the present petition is premature in nature inasmuch as only notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued. He further submitted that in any adversary event, the petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy by way of appeal to the CIT (A) and thereafter to the Appellate Tribunal. Thus, he requested this Court to dismiss the petition on this count only. (2) Learned advocate submitted that although notice has been issued beyond a period of four years, however, both the requirements i.e. reason to believe that income has escaped assessment coupled with failure on part of the petitioner to truly and fully disclose the materials have been fulfilled. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act is perfectly justified being within four corners of law and thereby the present petition deserves to be dismissed. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act is perfectly justified being within four corners of law and thereby the present petition deserves to be dismissed. (3) Learned advocate submitted that at the time of issuing notice under Section 148, the Assessing Officer has to have prima facie opinion that there is sufficient material on which reasonable person could have formed a requisite belief. Learned advocate further submitted that in the instant case, as per the information received from the investigation wing, it has been noticed that the petitioner has been issued 2989208 shares of share premium of Rs.415/- and thereby the share premium reserve for drastically increased to the extent of Rs.124,51,00,220/-. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that in view of unnatural hike in share premium reserve, it gives rise to strong suspicion on the aspect of genuineness and creditworthiness of the share subscribers. Thus, the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued in accordance with law and with all pre-requisite criteria. (4) Learned advocate Mr.Patel lastly submitted that there cannot be said to be change of opinion in the present case. To substantiate the said contention, learned advocate vehemently submitted that while passing the original assessment order, the details and documents which were sought and considered on other issues and those issues do not correlate with the issue on which the impugned notice under Section 148 issued for reopening of the assessment. 6.1 By making above submissions, learned advocate Mr.Varun Patel for the respondent requested this Court to dismiss the present petition. 7. We have heard learned advocates for the respective parties and have gone through the materials produced on record. No other and/or further submissions have been canvassed by learned advocates for the respective parties except stated hereinabove. 8. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the materials produced on record, the short question that falls for consideration of this Court is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, reopening of assessment can be said to be change of opinion? 9. So as to decide the aforesaid question, in our considered opinion, it would be apt to take note of recording of reasons on the basis of reopening has been sought for, which can be extracted as under. 9. So as to decide the aforesaid question, in our considered opinion, it would be apt to take note of recording of reasons on the basis of reopening has been sought for, which can be extracted as under. “BASIS OF FORMING REASON TO BELIEVE AND DETAILS OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME: As per the information received from the credible sources that during the year, the assessee had issued share 29,89,208 on share premium of Rs. 415/-. The share premium reserve as on 31.03.2014 is Rs. 1,03,58,75,980/- as per ITR of AY 2014-15 where as share premium reserve as on 31.03.2015 is Rs.2,28,09,76,200/- as per ITR of AY 2015-16 i.e. rise of Rs. 1,24,51,00,220/-. There is a substantial increase in share capital due to exponentially hike in share premium which do not match with the financial of the assessee and also raised question on identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of share subscribers. Therefore, share premium of Rs.1,19,97,08,655/- received by the assessee, is required to be verified. Failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for the assessment, the income of the assessee has escaped assessment to the tune of Rs.1,19,97,08,655/- for the AY 20115-16within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.I have, therefore, reason to believe that this is a fit case for reopening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act and for issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 9.1 So as to consider the recording of reasons as stated hereinabove, in our considered opinion, it is also worthwhile to take note of verification report based on which such reasons were recorded by the Assessing Officer. For the sake of brevity, the same is extracted hereinbelow. “3. After verification of the case, the I.O. has found that ".....In this case, information was received for the verification of 29,89,208 issued shares on share premium of Rs. 415/-on difierent dates as mentioned above in table A in FY 2014-15. Notice u/s. 133(6) of the IT Act was issued to the assessee company on difierent dates as mentioned above. In response of the notice issued the assessee has submitted details for the same. A) Findings of ACIT: On verification of details on ITBA, it is noticed that the case of the assessee was selected for detailed Scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the IT Act for AY 2015-16. In response of the notice issued the assessee has submitted details for the same. A) Findings of ACIT: On verification of details on ITBA, it is noticed that the case of the assessee was selected for detailed Scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the IT Act for AY 2015-16. Hence, e-mail through official webmail portal was sent on 14.10.2020 to DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad requesting him to provide copy of Assessment Order u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act and copy of notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act for A.Y. 2015-16. In response to the said e-mail, reply was received on 19.10.2020 where copy of assessment order u/s 143(3) of IT Act dated 28.04.2017 was provided alongwith copy of notices u/ s 142(1) of IT Act dated 20.03.2017. It was observed that the issue of rise in share premium was discussed during the course of assessment proceedings. The documentary evidence for the same is placed on record i.e. point number (3) of Notice u/s. 142(1) dated 20.03.2017 shows the verification with respect to security premium done by then AO at the time of scrutiny assessment. (Copy of the assessment order and copy of notice u/s. 142(1) of the IT Act along with reasons are placed on record). ACIT did not take adverse view with respect to rise in security premium for AY 2015-16. AO has not mentioned the details of amount of share premium or number of shares issued at premium in the notice u/s 142(1) of IT Act dated 20.03.2017 which shows the issue need to be seen once again by jurisdictional ofiicer to take necessary action if required.” 9.2 Considering the aforesaid verification report, in our considered opinion, it is made abundantly clear therein that the issue with regard to rise in share premium was discussed during the course of assessment proceedings and the said issue was well within the mind of then Assessing Officer at the time of scrutiny assessment. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that at the time when the original scrutiny assessment was concluded, then Assessing Officer had already considered the issue of rise in share premium and thereafter the assessment was framed, therefore, it would not be now permissible in eye of law that revenue can reopen the concluded assessment proceedings on the same issue and details. It cannot be said that any new or tangible material has come in possession of the revenue which was not truly and fully disclosed by the assessee at the time when the assessment proceedings were concluded. 10. Accordingly, in our view, notice under Section 148 of the Act seeking reopening of the concluded assessment is nothing but mere change of opinion. We answer the question accordingly. 11. In the result, for the foregoing discussion, the petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed by quashing and setting aside the Notice dated 31.3.2021 under Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 seeking, inter-alia, reopening of the assessment for the Assessment Year 2015-16.