ORDER : NIRAL R. MEHTA, J. 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the notice dated 29th March 2021 issued by the respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) as well as the order dated 9th February 2022, by which the objections raised by the petitioner were rejected. 2. The facts giving rise to the present petition, in nutshell, can be stated as under: 2.1. The petitioner is engaged in the business of trading in gold ornaments. On 16th April 2022, two employees of the petitioner carrying around 19 Kgs. of gold ornaments were intercepted by the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investigation) at the Mangalore Airport. An inquiry was carried out as to the nature and source of investment in gold jewellery held by them by issuing summons under Section 131(1A) of the Act upon the petitioner as well as the employees namely Mr. Chidrap Gandhi and Mr. Paresh Rawal. 2.2. On 17th April 2012, notice was also issued by the Income Tax Officer (Investigation), Air Intelligence Unit, Ahmedabad specifically inquiring into the purchase of the gold and its accounting by the petitioner. 2.3. Apropos to the aforesaid, the petitioner submitted details vide letter dated 3rd May 2012. Thereafter, the employees along with gold held by them were released from Mangalore. 2.4. The petitioner filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2013-14 on 20th September 2013 declaring, inter alia, total income of Rs.22,12,882/-. The return was selected for scrutiny. During the course of scrutiny, notices under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 14th August 2015, 11th January 2016 and 5th February 2016 were issued upon the petitioner inquiring, inter alia, the entire business activity of the petitioner including the travelling expenditure. The petitioner submitted all the relevant material regarding quantity of gold ornaments, details of closing stock along with relevant documents, details of opening stock purchase, consumption, yield and sale both with respect to raw material as well as with respect to finished goods on 2nd January 2016. The Assessing Officer, having considered the documents submitted by the petitioner, passed the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act on 4th March 2016 without making any addition on account of purchase of gold ornaments. 2.5. The Assessing Officer, having considered the documents submitted by the petitioner, passed the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act on 4th March 2016 without making any addition on account of purchase of gold ornaments. 2.5. Despite the aforesaid, notice dated 29th March 2021 under Section 148 came to be issued by the Income Tax Department upon the petitioner to file return of income for the Assessment Year 2013-14. On 4th May 2021, the petitioner complied to the notice under Section 148 of the Act by filing his return of income and sought reasons recorded for reopening. The extract of reasons was provided on 27th August 2021. The petitioner, therefore, vide letter dated 2nd October 2021, requested full copy of the reasons recorded containing date of recording and full copy of satisfaction recorded by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-1. 2.6. On 17th December 2021, respondent has issued notice under Section 142(1) of the Act instead of providing the full copy of reasons recorded by the PCIT, Ahmedabad – 1. Furtherance thereof, objections were filed by the petitioner on 28th December 2021 and once again to supply full copy of reasons recorded and approval obtained. 2.7. To the aforesaid, respondent No.2 provided the undated copy of reasons recorded on 29th December 2021 and has not provided the copy of satisfaction recorded by the PCIT, Ahmedabad-1 and thereafter, on 9th February 2022, objections filed by the petitioner came to be disposed of. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present petition for the appropriate relief. 4. We have heard learned advocate Mr. B. S. Soparkar for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Varun K. Patel for the Revenue authorities. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Soparkar, while assailing the impugned notice and order, has made the following submissions: 5.1. Learned advocate Mr. Soparkar submitted that the only reason recorded by the authority is that the petitioner has invested an amount of Rs.5,84,99,648/- for the purchase of gold weighing 19,756.720 grams, for which, the petitioner could not offer any explanation with documentary evidence and failed to furnish the source of purchase of gold and thereby, an amount of gold remained unexplained under Section 69 of the Act and thereby, the same is said to have escaped assessment of income. Learned advocate Mr. Learned advocate Mr. Soparkar vehemently submitted that such reason is fundamentally erroneous inasmuch as no new information said to have been received by the Assessing Officer for reopening of assessment. Learned advocate Mr. Soparkar further submitted that for the very quantum and amount of gold, thorough inquiry was conducted by the Investigation Unit at Mangalore Airport and after having been satisfied from the details so provided by the petitioner, the matter was closed and the gold was released. According to learned advocate Mr. Soparkar, the very information was already in possession of the then Assessing Officer during the course of original scrutiny assessment proceeding and at the time when the assessment order dated 4th March 2016 under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed. Thus, reopening and / or reassessment proceeding cannot be allowed to continue in absence of any new and / or tangible material. 5.2. Learned advocate Mr. Soparkar submitted that the reassessment sought to be reopened, admittedly, after a period of four years. Learned advocate Mr. Soparkar, therefore, submitted that merely having a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, is not sufficient, but such escapement of income must be due to failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly of material facts. However, in the instant case, according to Mr. Soparkar, there is no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose truly and fully any material fats. Under the circumstances, learned advocate Ms. Soparkar submitted that under Section 148 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5.3. Learned advocate Mr. Soparkar next submitted that at the time when the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 4th March 2016 was passed, the petitioner has already submitted all the relevant facts with necessary documents regarding quantity of gold ornaments, details of closing stock along with relevant documents, details of opening stock purchase, consumption, yield and sale both with respect to raw material as well as with respect to finished goods on 2nd January 2016. On such basis, the then Assessing Officer passed the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 4th March 2016 without making any addition on account of purchase of gold ornaments. Therefore, learned advocate Mr. On such basis, the then Assessing Officer passed the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 4th March 2016 without making any addition on account of purchase of gold ornaments. Therefore, learned advocate Mr. Soparkar submitted that now, exercise of power under Section 148 of the Act is nothing, but based on change of opinion and the same is impermissible in the eye of law. 5.4. Learned advocate Mr. Soparkar submitted that the reassessment proceedings sought to be initiated without recording independent satisfaction and / or without application of mind and merely on the basis of information received without conducting any basic inquiry on such received information. According to Mr. Soparkar, the said reassessment thereby can be said to be on borrowed satisfaction and the same is not permissible in the eye of law. 5.5. Lastly, learned advocate Mr. Soparkar submitted that the reassessment proceedings sought to be initiated only on the basis of suspicion that income has escaped assessment and no actual reason to believe is recorded. Such proceedings cannot be allowed to continue for any roving inquiry and thereby, notice issued under Section 148 of the Act deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. By making above, learned advocate Mr. Soparkar prays this Court to allow the present petition. 7. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Varun K. Patel for the Revenue, while supporting the impugned notice and order, has made the following submissions: 7.1. Learned advocate Mr. Patel, at the outset, submitted that the present petition is filed at a premature stage inasmuch as only a notice under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Act has been issued. He further submitted that in any adversary event, the petitioner would have an alternative efficacious remedy by way of appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and thereafter, to the learned Tribunal as per the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, learned advocate Mr. Patel has requested this Court to dismiss the present petition on this count alone. 7.2. Learned advocate Mr. Patel submitted that the case was sought to be reopened as per the procedure prescribed and after recording of satisfaction and taking approval of the competent authority and thus, it cannot be said that the case was reopened in a mechanical manner. 7.3. Learned advocate Mr. 7.2. Learned advocate Mr. Patel submitted that the case was sought to be reopened as per the procedure prescribed and after recording of satisfaction and taking approval of the competent authority and thus, it cannot be said that the case was reopened in a mechanical manner. 7.3. Learned advocate Mr. Patel submitted that the main ingredient required to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act is to form “reason to believe”. At this stage, according to learned advocate Mr. Patel, the only question is whether there was relevant material on which the reasonable person could have form the requisite belief as to whether an income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment or not. Learned advocate Mr. Patel further submitted that “reason to believe” cannot be read to mean that the Assessing Officer should have finally ascertained the fact by evidence or conclusion. Therefore, according to learned advocate Mr. Patel, once the Assessing Officer discovers or finds or satisfies that the taxable income has escaped assessment, it would be well within his domain to exercise power under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Act. 7.4. Learned advocate Mr. Patel submitted that the assessee had not disclosed fully and truly all material facts, however, on perusal of information collected / received, it is noticed that Shri Chidrap Gandhi and Shri Paresh Rawal were found by the CIFC with huge quantity of gold at Ahmedabad Airport and both the persons are the employees of Bhavin Jayendrakumar Shantilal to which the assessee has not offered any explanation with regard to source of purchase of gold and thereby, it was remained unexplained. Learned advocate Mr. Patel, therefore, submitted that in view of Section 69 of the Act, the income of the assessee said to have escaped assessment for the Assessment Year 2013-14 within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act and thereby, exercise of power under Section 148 of the Act is well justified. 7.5. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Patel for the Revenue has vehemently submitted that the case of the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of change of opinion, as sought to be canvassed by the petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Patel, therefore, requested this Court to dismiss the present petition. 8. By making above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Patel prays this Court to dismiss the present petition. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Patel, therefore, requested this Court to dismiss the present petition. 8. By making above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Patel prays this Court to dismiss the present petition. 9. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and have gone through the material produced on record in detail. No further and other submissions have been canvassed except what are stated hereinabove. 10. Having considered the submissions of learned advocate for the respective parties and having gone through the material produced on record, it appears that the two employees of the petitioner namely Shri Chidrap Gandhi and Shri Paresh Rawal were initially intercepted at Mangalore Airport on 16th April 2022 with gold ornaments by the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investigation) at Mangalore. The summons were issued upon the petitioner as well as his two employees under Section 131(1A). In furtherance thereof, thereby, the petitioner appeared personally and submitted all the details vide letter dated 3rd May 2012. It is pertinent to note that at that time, the employees as well as he gold were released without any further inquiry. The petitioner filed his return of income on 20th September 2013 declaring total income of Rs.22,12,882/-, which, in turn, was taken under scrutiny, wherein the petitioner submitted all the details regarding quantity of gold ornaments, details of closing stock along with relevant documents, details of opening stock purchase, consumption, yield and sale both with respect to raw material as well as with respect to finished goods on 2nd January 2016 and having considered all the material made available by the petitioner, the then Assessing Officer passed order dated 143(3) dated 4th March 2016 without making any addition on account of purchase of gold organization. The said gold ornaments were already recorded in the books of account. 11. Keeping in mind aforesaid facts, it is worthwhile to have a look at satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer. Relevant is extracted hereunder: “As per the information received from ITO(Inv.), Unit-1, Ahmedabad that on 16/04/2012 intimation as received from CISF Ahmedabad Airport that Shri Chidrap Gandhi and Shri Paresh Rawal was found with huge gold quantity. On being asked the persons presented, the copies of travelling vouchers no.5 & 6 dated 15/04/2012 issued by M/s. Soni Jayendrakumar Shantilal, 131-Super Mall, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad. On being asked the persons presented, the copies of travelling vouchers no.5 & 6 dated 15/04/2012 issued by M/s. Soni Jayendrakumar Shantilal, 131-Super Mall, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad. As per travelling vouchers the total weight of ornaments was at 19756.720 grams and value of such gold as on 31/03/2013 of 5,84,99,648/- Gold rate Rs. 29610/- per 10 gram as on 31/03/2013. On perusal of information so received, it is noticed that the assessee has invested on amount of Rs.5,84,99,648/- for purchase of gold weighing 19756.720 gram as on 31/03/2013. it is further reported by the ITO (Inv.), Unit-1, Ahmedabad that Shri Chidrap Gandhi and Shri Paresh Rawal are employees of Bhavin Jayendrakumar Soni, Prop. M/s. Soni Jayendrakumar Shantial. Section 69 of the Act provides that where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investment or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the AO satisfactory, the value of investments may be deemed to be the income of the assessee of such financial year. Therefore, it is very clear that the assessee has not offered any explanation with documentary evidences and also failed to furnish source of purchase of gold weighing 19756.720, the value of such gold is of Rs.5,84,99,648/- which is remain unexplained. 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.5,84,99,648/- for the AY 2013- 14 within 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.” 12. Considering the aforesaid satisfaction note, in our considered opinion, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer came in possession of any new and / or tangible material. We say so because the very said ornaments were already recorded in the books of account of the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid satisfaction note, in our considered opinion, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer came in possession of any new and / or tangible material. We say so because the very said ornaments were already recorded in the books of account of the petitioner. More so, while scrutiny under Section 143(3) of the Act, the petitioner has submitted all the details such as quantity of gold ornaments, details of closing stock along with relevant documents, details of opening stock purchase, consumption, yield and sale both with respect to raw material as well as with respect to finished goods on 2nd January 2016, meaning thereby, forming of ‘reason to believe’ is merely based on the information so received by the Assessing Officer. Thus, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer has recorded its independent satisfaction, but only relied upon the information received from the Investigation Unit, which is nothing, but said to be borrowed satisfaction. Since no tangible and / or new material has come in possession of the Assessing Officer, the reassessment proceedings can also be said on the basis of the change of opinion, which, according to our considered opinion, is not permissible in the eye of law. 13. In the result, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The notice dated 29th March 2021 issued by the respondent under Section 148 of the Act as well as the order dated 9th February 2022 are hereby quashed and set aside.