ORDER : Niral R. Mehta, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Manish J. Shah for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani for learned Senior Standing Counsel Mrs. Kalpana Raval for the respondent. 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), by which the Revenue has sought to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: 3.1 The petitioner–assessee submitted a return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 on 18.9.2012, declaring total income of Rs.12,12,520/-. 3.2 A notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2018 was issued upon the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner has filed her response on e-proceedings portal stating that return for the Assessment Year 2012-13 has already been filed vide acknowledgment no.8965711180912, the same may be considered as return filed under Section 148 of the Act. It was further requested to supply copy of reasons recorded for reopening of Assessment under Section 147 of the Act. A copy of reasons was forwarded vide letter dated 12.07.2018. 3.3. The petitioner vide letter dated 01.08.2018 uploaded her objection on e- proceedings portal. Again vide letter dated 18.09.2018, detailed objections were filed against the reopening of the assessment and the same was uploaded on e-proceeding portal, wherein in particular it was pointed out that the said show-cause notice was issued on wrong facts. The respondent, however, vide order dated 05.10.2018 disposed of the objections filed by the petitioner wherein reassessment under Section 147 held to be justified. 3.4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioner has approached this Court for appropriate writ, order, direction in the interest of justice. 3.5 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition for the appropriate reliefs. 4. We have heard learned advocate Mr. Manish J. Shah for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani for the respondent. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Manish J. Shah for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned notice and the order disposing the objection, has made the following submissions: 5.1 Learned advocate Mr. 4. We have heard learned advocate Mr. Manish J. Shah for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani for the respondent. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Manish J. Shah for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned notice and the order disposing the objection, has made the following submissions: 5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Manish Shah submitted that the assessment of the petitioner sought to be reopened is based on factually incorrect information that the petitioner has not disclosed profit of Rs.3,13,000/-. 5.2 Learned advocate Mr. Shah further submitted that whereas the fact is the aforesaid profit was duly disclosed in the return of income and has also been taxed accordingly. Thus, according to learned advocate Mr. Shah it is an issue under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2012-13 can not be sustained being based on the wrong information and facts. 5.3 To substantiate aforesaid contention, learned advocate Mr. Shah has placed reliance on Kapadia Money Changers (P) Ltd. v. Assistnat Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2019) 108 taxmann.com 275 (Guj.). 5.4 Learned advocate Mr. Shah further submitted that reopening of the assessment in the case of the petitioner is based on borrowed satisfaction and that there is complete non-application of mind on the information so received. 5.5 Thus, according to learned advocate Mr. Shah the notice issued on the basis of the borrowed satisfaction which is not valid in the eyes of law. 5.6 Learned advocate Mr. Shah submitted that from the reasons recorded it is abundantly clear that the Assessing Officer wanting to make fishing and roving enquiries and thereby the notification of provision of Section 148 of the Act for such fishing and roving enquiries is not permissible. 5.6 By making the above submission, learned advocate Mr. Shah has requested this Court to allow this petition as prayed for. 6. Per contra, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani while opposing the petition, has made following submissions. 6.1. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Sanghani submitted that the petition is premature in nature as the assessment is yet to take place. It was further submitted that even otherwise, in the event of any adversary order, the petitioner would have an alternative statutory effective remedy by way of Appeal before CIT Appeals and thereafter ITAT. Thus, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Sanghani requested to dismiss the petition. 6.2. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. It was further submitted that even otherwise, in the event of any adversary order, the petitioner would have an alternative statutory effective remedy by way of Appeal before CIT Appeals and thereafter ITAT. Thus, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Sanghani requested to dismiss the petition. 6.2. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Sanghani further submitted that in the order disposing of the objection it has been stated that Section 147 of the Act has been invoked for the purpose of scrutinizing the new material for investigation and thereby it can not be said that the provisions of Section 148 of the Act has been invoked for making any fishing and roving enquiries. 6.3. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Sanghani submitted that the order disposing of the objection opposing the reassessment has been passed in great detail and sufficient reasons have been advanced by the Assessing Officer, thus, the said order can not be followed with. Accordingly learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Sanghani requested this Court to dismiss the petition. 6.4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Sanghani vehemently submitted that the Assessing Officer has formed reasons on the basis of tangible material which has come in the possession of the revenue, therefore it can not be said to be attempt to revisit the matter and or review nor a change of opinion. 6.5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Sanghani lastly submitted that at this stage, only prima facie material deserves to be taken note of and sufficiency and correctness of material can not be considered at this stage. It is further submitted that prima facie material suggest that the reopening of assessment is necessary and thereby the objection against the reopening is justifiably rejected. 6.6. By making the above submission learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Sanghani has requested this Court to dismiss the petition. 7. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and have gone through the material produced on record. No other and further submissions have been canvassed by learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, except what are stated herein-above. 8. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the material placed on record, the short question that falls for consideration before this Court is whether the notice under Section 148 of the Act and the order rejecting objections can be said to be legal? 9. 8. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the material placed on record, the short question that falls for consideration before this Court is whether the notice under Section 148 of the Act and the order rejecting objections can be said to be legal? 9. So as to answer the aforesaid question, at the outset it is pertinent to take a note of the reasons recorded by the Assessing officer on the basis of which the reassessment sought to be undertaken and the same is thus extracted herein below for the sake of brevity : “The assessee Toral Himanshubhai Shah having address at 65, Ishita Park Row house, Near Sanghvi Tower, Adajan Road, Surat derived income from business and income from other sources during the year under consideration. The Assessee is assessed under the PAN-AEDPS1678H. The assessee had filed return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 29.08.2012 declaring total income of Rs.12,12,520/- During the year, the assessee has shown income from business Rs.957826 and income from other sources Rs.254694/-. The case of the assessee was not selected for scrutiny earlier, i.e. for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. This office was in receipt of information from the office of ADIT (Inv), Unit 3(1) Kolkatta, wherein it was stated that there was systematic evasion of taxes by clients/members of the National Multi Commodity exchange by misusing the NMCE platform. The Kolkatta Investigation wing had forwarded a list of such clients who have evaded taxes on profits derived by trading in commodity exchange. The assessee Toral Himanshubhai Shah has made purchases of commodities amounting to Rs.6902700/- and sales of Rs.7215800/- thereby deriving profit of Rs.313100/- through the NMCE platform. The return of income of the assessee apparently does not reflect the said profit derived on sale of commodities. 3. The Kolkatta Investigation wing during the course of investigation on brokers of National Multi commodity exchange had ascertained that there was systematic evasion of taxes by clients/ Members of NMCE platform and hence ascertained the list of such clients. The assessee Toral Himanshubhai Shah is one of such clients who had derived profit of Rs. 313100/- and failed to reflect the same in her return of income. Thus income to the tune of Rs. 313100/-has escaped assessment. 4. As discussed above, Toral Himanshubhai Shah had derived profit of Rs. The assessee Toral Himanshubhai Shah is one of such clients who had derived profit of Rs. 313100/- and failed to reflect the same in her return of income. Thus income to the tune of Rs. 313100/-has escaped assessment. 4. As discussed above, Toral Himanshubhai Shah had derived profit of Rs. 313100/- being the difference between purchase and sale of commodities over the National Multi commodity Exchange and failed to reflect the same in her return of income. Thus, Income to the tune of Rs. 313100/- or more has escaped assessment in the case of the assessee attracting the provisions of Income-tax Act. 5. In view of the above referred discussion, there is a basis for reason to believe that income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs. 313100/- or more in the case of the assessee had escaped assessment. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income to the tune of at least Rs.313100/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. I am therefore, satisfied that this is a fit case for invoking the provisions of section 147 of the Income-tax Act.” 10. Having considered the reasons so recorded, it appears that the Revenue has sought to reopen the assessment on the sole basis that the profit of Rs.3,13,100/- being the difference between purchase and sale of commodities over national multi commodities exchange, though derived but not reflected in the return of income. 11. Now, as per the undisputed fact that the petitioner has already submitted at page 63 and 64 a contract note dated 01.10.2011 issued by Star Commodities with regard to the transaction in which it is alleged that the income has escaped assessment. Considering the ledger account of Star Commodities produced on record at page 66, the very income of Rs.3,13,100/- has already been reflected. Further, on perusal it has been found that the Bank Statement of the Union Bank of India for the period between 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 wherein the said amount has been reflected. 12. Keeping in mind the aforesaid material on record, in our considered opinion, the entire base of reopening that income of Rs.3,13,100/- escaped assessment is not correct. In other words, we may say that the reasons so recorded and the notice under Section 148 of the Act is nothing but a sheer non application of mind by the Revenue. 12. Keeping in mind the aforesaid material on record, in our considered opinion, the entire base of reopening that income of Rs.3,13,100/- escaped assessment is not correct. In other words, we may say that the reasons so recorded and the notice under Section 148 of the Act is nothing but a sheer non application of mind by the Revenue. Thus, we therefor hold that a notice under Section 148 of the Act cannot be said to be legal in the eye of law. 13. We answer the question accordingly. 14. In the result, the present petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned notice under Section 148 dated 31.03.2018 as well as the order dated 5.10.2018 is hereby quashed and set aside.