ORDER : Bhargav D. Karia, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : “8.1 That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned notice dated 30.03.2021 issued u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act by the respondent (Annexure-E) as well as the order dated 11.11.2021 disposing off the objections against the reasons recorded (Annexure-H).” 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 The petitioner is a partnership firm established on 1st April 1994. The petitioner filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 through electronic media on 29th October 2017 declaring total income of Rs.96,91,680/-. 2.2 Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) and notice was accordingly issued by the Assessing Officer - ACIT, Circle 5(2)(1), Ahmedabad. During the course of assessment proceedings, various details and explanation were called for, all of which had been duly submitted on record of the then Assessing Officer so as to say that there was due compliance and full and true disclosure on the part of the petitioner. 2.3 The then Assessing Officer had issued notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 23rd August 2019 whereby he had asked to submit details regarding source and nature of cash deposited for the Financial Years 2015-16 and 2016-17 and in response to the same, the petitioner had submitted the details of source and nature of cash deposited for the Financial Years 2015-16 and 2016-17 vide reply dated 3rd December 2019. 2.4 Thereafter, the petitioner received another notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 30th November 2019, wherein the then Assessing Officer sought for information with regard to the cash deposit made by the assessee firm in its various bank accounts with AXIS Bank and other banks during the Financial Year 2016-17 and in response to the same, the petitioner made two submissions dated 10th December 2019 on the ITBA Online platform on 10th December 2019. 2.5 Subsequently, the petitioner received other notices under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 11th October 2019 and 21st November 2019, all of which were duly complied with by the petitioner vide replies dated 29th August 2019, 18th October 2019, 23rd October 2019, 8th November 2019 and 22nd November 2019 respectively so as to say that due compliance was made against all of the notices issued by the Assessing Officer from time to time. 2.6 Ultimately, the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was framed after thorough scrutiny on 26th December 2019, wherein no addition has been made in respect of the amount cash deposit determining the total income at Rs.96,91,680/- being returned income as assessed income. The then Assessing Officer, after verification of facts and submissions placed before him by the petitioner such as source of cash deposit in the form of cash book, bank book, month wise cash sales being the source of cash deposits and after application of mind, passed the assessment order dated 26th December 2019 under Section 143(3) of the Act. 3. The petitioner, thereafter, received notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 30th March 2021 for reopening of the Assessment Year 2017-18. 3.1 That the petitioner has filed Income Tax Return under Section 148 of the Act dated 23rd April 2021 under protest and made compliance with the provisions of the Act. 3.2 Subsequently, the respondent issued notice under Section 143(2) read with Section 147 of the Act dated 21st May 2021 along with reasons recorded for reassessment on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing, Ahmedabad. 4. The petitioner filed objections against with the relevant exhibits vide letter dated 27th May 2021. The respondent, by letter dated 11th November 2021, disposed of the objections. The petitioner, therefore, being aggrieved, has preferred this petition. 5. Learned advocate Ms. Nupur D. Shah for the petitioner submitted that the respondent – Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment by the impugned notice dated 30th March 2021 beyond the period of four years though the assessee has made full and true disclosure while filing the original return of income by providing all the information and material at the time of scrutiny assessment and the Assessing Officer, after examining the details made available by the assessee, has passed the order under Section 143(3) of the Act. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned notice was issued only on the basis of the information received from the Insight Portal and the Investigation Wing, Ahmedabad without referring to the original assessment proceedings and therefore, there was no independent formation of belief by the respondent – Assessing Officer, but the impugned notice was issued under the borrowed satisfaction. 6. It was submitted that the impugned notice is without jurisdiction and the assessee has disclosed all the material facts fully and truly during the assessment proceedings, and therefore, the notice on the very same subject matter could not have been issued. 7. Learned advocate Ms. Shah invited the attention of this Court to the notice dated 23rd August 2019 issued under Section 142(1) of the Act, wherein the details of all the bank accounts was called for including the details of cash deposited during the Financial Year 2016-17 in each of the bank accounts with source of income and comparative details of cash deposited in past three years in the format provided in the notice. 8. It was submitted that the petitioner has submitted the entire details along with the reply dated 3rd December 2019. The petitioner also provided details and copy of the bank book and cash book for the months of November and December 2016, as required by the notice dated 30th November 2019, vide reply dated 10th December 2019. 9. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned notice requiring reopening of assessment based upon the amount of Rs.7.39 Crore deposited in the bank account with the Axis Bank is nothing, but a change of opinion. It was, therefore, submitted that the respondent has not dealt with the contentions raised on behalf of the assessee while rejecting the objections. 10. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. It was, therefore, submitted that the respondent has not dealt with the contentions raised on behalf of the assessee while rejecting the objections. 10. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun K. Patel for the respondent submitted that the impugned notice issued is within the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and on perusal of the reasons recorded, it was pointed out that the petitioner had deposited a huge cash of Rs.7.39 Crore during the year under consideration in the bank accounts in comparing cash sales for the various periods which noted that the assessee has shown alleged highest cash in the month of October 2016 i.e. just before the demonetization period as compared to other months and on the basis of the fresh information received after completion of the original assessment, which was not available at the relevant time, would go to show that there was no change of opinion in view of the specific information received from the Investigation Wing containing detailed information which was treated to be a suspicious case. 11. It was submitted that the information received from the Investigation Wing also revealed that though the Investigation Wing issued summons under Section 131(1A) of the Act, no satisfactory response was given by the petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Patel refers to the Annexure : R1 to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the petitioner disclosing information received from the Investigation Wing, to point out that that the petitioner, in response to the summons issued under Section 131(1A) of the Act, has filed reply without any ledger account and counter confirmation of the parties referred to in the summons as the parties related to Bhawarlal Jain and Pravin Jain search case and most of them were bogus parties and the petitioner has made purchases from the above parties which are bogus entities. It was, therefore, submitted that the subsequent fresh information received by the respondent with regard to cash deposited of Rs.7.39 Crore during the demonetization period in the bank account with the Axis Bank has been recorded and as per the reasons recorded, it cannot be said to be a change of opinion and the respondent has reasoned to believe that there is an escapement of income on the basis of knowledge obtained from the Investigation Wing. It was, therefore, submitted that the respondent, after receiving the information from the credible source, has verified and analyzed the same and then recorded the reasons to believe that income of the assessee has escaped assessment. 12. Learned advocate Mr. Patel has referred to and relied upon the following decisions : (i) Salem Provident Fund Society Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [1971] 82 ITR 367 (SC) (ii) Gruh Finance Ltd vs. Joint CIT (2000) 161 CTR (Guj) 100 : (2000) 243 ITR 482 (Guj) (iii) Bawabhai Singh vs. DCIT, 253 ITR 83 (Delhi High Court) (iv) Hemjay Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd - through Deenaben Yogeshbhai Shah vs. ITO, Ward-2(2) in R/Special Civil Application No.19392 of 2018 (Gujarat High Court) (v) CIT vs. Rajesh vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd [2007] 161 taxman 316 (SC). 13. It was submitted that this petition may not be entertained in view of the above facts. 14. In rejoinder, learned advocate Ms. Shah for the petitioner reiterated that the petitioner has made full and true disclosure of all the material facts during the course of investigation including cash deposited in the bank account by the petitioner and therefore, the impugned notice is nothing but a change of opinion, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd reported in [2010] (1) 87 taxman 312 (SC) : 320 ITR 561 (SC). It was, therefore, submitted that the Assessing Officer, while framing the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act has applied mind on the facts made available on record by the assessee and therefore, the impugned notice is liable to be quashed. 15. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the facts of the case, the respondent – Assessing Officer has recorded the following reasons: “Issues as per reasons recorded for reopening As per the information received from the credible sources that the assessee firm has deposited cash of Rs.7,39,00,000/- during the year under consideration in its bank account vide No.910020008982526, 915030065781940 and 915030063701995 maintained at AXIS Bank, Bopal Branch, Ahmedabad. The assessee firm has shown cash sale on account of source of cash deposited into the above accounts during the FY 2016-17. The assessee firm has shown cash sale on account of source of cash deposited into the above accounts during the FY 2016-17. It is further worth to mention here that, on going through the information available in Insight Portal, the assessee firm found to be the owner of the money appearing in bank account(s), Further, the nature and source of such deposits made in the bank accounts were not at all explained. Apart from the above, it is further important to mention here that on carefully examining the information received from credible sources, it is seen that, the assessee firm has shown highest cash sale in the month of October, 2016 (i.e. Just before the demonetization period) as compare to other months, which required deep investigation. On perusal of information so received from Investigation Wing. Ahmedabad, it is noticed that the assessee firm M/s. Arunbhai Maneklal Jhaveri & Sons (AAFFA3228F) is found to be the owner of the money appearing in me bank account(s) vide No.910020008982526, 915030065781940 and 915030063701995 maintained with AXIS Bank Ltd. to the tune of Rs.7,39,00,000/- and the financial transaction as discussed above is clearly attract the provision of section 69A of the Income-tax Act and therefore required to be added back to the total income of the assessee. 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.7,39,00,000/- for the AY 2017-18 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.” 16. On perusal of the above reasons, it is clear that the Assessing Officer has relied upon the information received in the insight portal for cash deposited of Rs.7.39 Crores and the bank accounts maintained with the Axis Bank by the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the assessee has filed detailed reply to the notice dated 23rd August 2019 issued under Section 142(1) of the Act providing details of all the bank accounts, as required under Clause (3) and the details of cash deposited along with comparative details, as required under Clauses (6), (7) and (8) in the annexures to the said notice. The assessee has also filed reply to the notice dated 30th January 2019 under Section 142(1) of the Act furnishing details of cash book and bank book for the month of November and December 2016 disclosing source of cash deposited is out of the cash sales of the assessee’s firm and cash on hand balance available on cash book and cash sales made during the Financial Year 2016-17 duly reflected in the books of account. The assessee has also filed further reply providing fresh purchases and sales of all the items with quantity and value for the Financial Year 2016-17 and the relevant Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18 and cash book for the months of October, November and December 2016 during the course of assessment proceedings. Thus, the assessee has disclosed full and true material facts before the Assessing Officer during the original assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer, after considering such notice, has passed the impugned assessment order dated 26th December 2019 under Section 143(3) of the Act accepting the return of income of the assessee. 17. In view of the above facts emerging from record, the reasons recorded by the respondent - Assessing Officer is nothing, but mere change of opinion. Learned advocate for the respondent has tried to supplement to the reasons recorded by the report of the Investigation Department at Annexure : R1 to the affidavit-in-reply, but none of the parties referred to therein are part of the reasons recorded as the reasons recorded only referred to the cash deposited in the bank account and there is no reference to any purchase made by the petitioner which are referred to in the report of the Investigation Department. Therefore, the respondent – Assessing Officer could not have assumed jurisdiction to issue notice for reopening upon what is recorded by him for reopening the assessment. 18. Therefore, the respondent – Assessing Officer could not have assumed jurisdiction to issue notice for reopening upon what is recorded by him for reopening the assessment. 18. Considering the above facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the impugned notice for reopening of the Assessment Year 2017-18 is nothing but a change of opinion, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd (supra), wherein it is held as under : “On going through the changes, quoted above, made to Section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, re-opening could be done under above two conditions and fulfillment of the said conditions alone conferred jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to make a back assessment, but in section 147 of the Act [with effect from 1st April, 1989], they are given a go-by and only one condition has remained, viz., that where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, confers jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. Therefore, post-1st April, 1989, power to re-open is much wider. However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words “reason to believe” failing which, we are afraid, Section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of “mere change of opinion”, which cannot be per se reason to re-open. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to re-assess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to re-assess. But re-assessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain pre-condition and if the concept of “change of opinion” is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of re-opening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of “change of opinion” as an in-built test to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. Hence, after 1st April, 1989, Assessing Officer has power to re-open, provided there is “tangible material” to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief. Our view gets support from the changes made to Section 147 of the Act, as quoted hereinabove. Hence, after 1st April, 1989, Assessing Officer has power to re-open, provided there is “tangible material” to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief. Our view gets support from the changes made to Section 147 of the Act, as quoted hereinabove. Under the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, Parliament not only deleted the words “reason to believe” but also inserted the word “opinion” in Section 147 of the Act. However, on receipt of representations from the Companies against omission of the words “reason to believe”, Parliament re-introduced the said expression and deleted the word “opinion” on the ground that it would vest arbitrary powers in the Assessing Officer. We quote hereinbelow the relevant portion of Circular No.549 dated 31st October, 1989, which reads as follows: “7.2 Amendment made by the Amending Act, 1989, to reintroduce the expression 'reason to believe' in Section 147.--A number of representations were received against the omission of the words 'reason to believe' from Section 147 and their substitution by the 'opinion' of the Assessing Officer. It was pointed out that the meaning of the expression, 'reason to believe' had been explained in a number of court rulings in the past and was well settled and its omission from section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen past assessments on mere change of opinion. To allay these fears, the Amending Act, 1989, has again amended section 147 to reintroduce the expression 'has reason to believe' in place of the words 'for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, is of the opinion'. Other provisions of the new section 147, however, remain the same.”” 19. For the foregoing reasons, this petition succeeds. The impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 30th March 2021 for reopening of the Assessment Year 2017-18 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.