JUDGMENT : (Niral R. Mehta, J.) : 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 18.03.2020 under section 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961 [for short ‘the Act’] whereby, the Income Tax department has sought to reopen the assessment of the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2013- 14. 2. Brief facts of the case as can be stated from the memo of the petition are as under: 2.1 The petitioner was engaged in the business of manufacturing sprinklers and drip irrigation system, P.P.Ball valves, HDPE pipes and execution of turnkey projects for the relevant Assessment Year 2013-14. It is the case of the petitioner that for the purpose of Companies Act, the annual accounts for the period from 01.04.2012 to 30.06.2013 was prepared. As per the balance-sheet as on 30.06.2013 ‘Other Current Assets” of the petitioner was shown aggregating to Rs. 8,07,13,133/- and for sake of brevity, the break up of the same was given in ‘Note 17’. Export Incentives receivables Rs. 1,01,46,192/- Interest receivable Rs. 3,24,30,986/- Claims receivables Rs. 3,81,35,955/- Total Rs. 8,07,13,133/- 2.2 Income of the petitioner in the aforesaid annual accounts also included the following income: Export Incentives Rs. 35,16,397/- (Note-19) Interest Rs.2,41,04,150/- (Note-20) 2.3 For the purpose of Income Tax Act,1961, annual accounts were prepared for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013. The petitioner filed return of income for the year under consideration on 29.11.2013 declaring total income at Rs. 6,38,41,415/-. 2.4 The case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny assessment. The then Assessing Officer vide notice dated 10.07.2015 called upon the petitioner to furnish various details including the details pertaining to export sale as well as benefit availed in the form of duty drawback, duty of customs or central excise repaid and repayable, cash assistance under section 28(iiia)/(iiib)/(iiic). 2.5 The petitioner vide letter dated 24.07.2015 furnished various details including the details of export sales as well as details of benefits of Rs. 35,16,397/- in the Form of duty drawback and cash assistance under section 28(iiia)/(iiib)/(iiic) of the Act. 2.6 Vide letter dated 07.01.2016, the petitioner also furnished details of interest income along with ledgers. 2.7 Considering the aforesaid, the then Assessing Officer decided not to disturb returned income of the petitioner while framing assessment under section 143(3) of the Act vide its order dated 21.03.2016. 2.6 Vide letter dated 07.01.2016, the petitioner also furnished details of interest income along with ledgers. 2.7 Considering the aforesaid, the then Assessing Officer decided not to disturb returned income of the petitioner while framing assessment under section 143(3) of the Act vide its order dated 21.03.2016. 2.8 Thereafter, the notice under section 148 dated 18.03.2020 came to be issued by the revenue seeking inter alia to reopen the case of the petitioner for the year under consideration. 2.9 Pursuant to the aforesaid notice, the petitioner filed return of income on 04.06.2020 and further requested to supply copy of reasons recorded for reopening the case for the year under consideration. The respondent in furtherance thereto, supplied copy of reasons recorded vide its letter dated 21.10.2020. 2.10 The petitioner raised objections against reopening somewhere in November,2020 with all factual and legal contentions. However, the respondent vide its order dated 10.02.2021 disposed of such objections and held that reopening is justified. 2.11 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition for the appropriate writ, direction or order. 3. We have heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tushar Hemani with learned advocate Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Rudram Trivedi for learned advocate Ms.Kalpana Raval for the respondent. 4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Hemani for the petitioner submitted that the reopening of the assessment at the instance of the Revenue is beyond the period of four years that too, in absence of any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose full and true disclosure. Accordingly, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Hemani submitted that the assessment already framed under section 143(3) cannot be reopened beyond the prescribed period of four years. 4.1 Learned Senor advocate Mr. Hemani for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the notice issued by the then Assessing Officer, the petitioner had already furnished all the details including the details of export sales as well as details of benefits of Rs. 35,16,397/- in the form of duty drawback and cash assistance under section 28(iiia)/(iiib)/(iiic). Learned senior advocate Mr. Hemani further submitted that even the detail of interest income along with ledgers were also submitted before the Assessing Officer and thereafter, considering all the material on record, the then Assessing Officer has framed assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. Thus, according to learned Senior Advocate Mr. Learned senior advocate Mr. Hemani further submitted that even the detail of interest income along with ledgers were also submitted before the Assessing Officer and thereafter, considering all the material on record, the then Assessing Officer has framed assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. Thus, according to learned Senior Advocate Mr. Hemani, no failure on the part of the petitioner as to full and true disclosure for the year under consideration can be attributable to the assessee and thus, notice under section 148 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4.2 Learned Senior advocate Mr. Hemani submitted that the Assessing Officer must have cogent and reasonable reasons to hold that he has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and it should not be made on the basis of information and/or third party information. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Hemani further submitted that the entire reopening is on the count that export incentives interest and claim aggregating to Rs.5,30,92,586/- has escaped assessment to which learned Senior Mr. Hemani submitted that it is a matter of record that pursuant to the notice issued by the then Assessing Officer at the stage of 143(3), all the details along with the supportive documents were submitted to the then Assessing Officer and based on such, order under section 143(3) was passed. Thus, on the same set of facts and the material available, the issuance of impugned notice under section 148 is nothing but a mere change of opinion, which is not permissible in the eye of law. 5. By making above submissions, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Hemani requested this Court to allow the petition. 6. Per contra, learned Advocate Mr. Rudram Trivedi while supporting the notice has made following submissions: 6.1 Learned advocate Mr.Rudram Trivedi for the Revenue vehemently opposed the petition contending inter alia that the petition being at premature stage as reassessment is yet to be finalized, in any case, adversaries to the assesse, the appeal under the provisions of Income Tax Act before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal are available. 6.2 Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi further submitted that certain export incentives, interest and other claims accrued, and though the assessee was following mercantile system of accounting, such accruals were not routed through profit and loss account and thereby the assessee cannot said to have made full and true disclosure as to income. 6.2 Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi further submitted that certain export incentives, interest and other claims accrued, and though the assessee was following mercantile system of accounting, such accruals were not routed through profit and loss account and thereby the assessee cannot said to have made full and true disclosure as to income. Thus, the notice under section 148 beyond the prescribed period is maintainable that the same may not be thereby discarded as beyond the limitation. 6.3 Learned advocate Mr. Rudram Trivedi submitted that although the proceedings under section 143(3) was undertaken by the then Assessing Officer, however, there was no active consideration and/or deliberation on the issue which is now sought to be taken up by way of issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act and thus, according to learned senior standing counsel Mr. Sanghani it cannot be said to be a mere change of opinion. 6.4 By making above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Trivedi requested to dismiss the petition. 7. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the materials produced on record, a short question that calls for consideration is as to whether impugned notice under section 148 for reopening the assessment proceedings can be said as mere change of opinion. To decide the aforesaid question, it would be relevant to take a note of reasons recorded. Thus, the same is hereby extracted for the sake of brevity. “1. The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 29.11.2013 declaring total loss (-) Rs.6,38,41,415/-. The scrutiny assessment was finalized u/s 143(3) on 29.03.2016 determining total loss (-) Rs.6,38,41,415/-. The assessee derives its business from business as Manufacture of sprinklers & Drip Irrigation System, P.P. Ball valves and HDPE Pipes and Execution of Turnkey Projects. 2. On verification of balance sheet (Note-17) and profit and loss account submitted by the assessee, it is seen that the assessee had accrued export incentive, interest and claims which were not routed through Profit and loss account. Particulars Other current asset Offered in P & LA/c Remained to offer Total 8,07,13,133 2,76,20,547 5,30,92,586 Export Incentive Receivable 1,01,46,192 36,16,397 66,29,836 Interest Receivable 3,24,30,986 2,41,04,150 83,26,836 Claims Receivable 3,81,35,955 0 3,81,35,955 3. Particulars Other current asset Offered in P & LA/c Remained to offer Total 8,07,13,133 2,76,20,547 5,30,92,586 Export Incentive Receivable 1,01,46,192 36,16,397 66,29,836 Interest Receivable 3,24,30,986 2,41,04,150 83,26,836 Claims Receivable 3,81,35,955 0 3,81,35,955 3. Analysis of above clearly indicates that the assesses company following mercantile system of accounting, hence any amount accrued required to be credited in profit and loss account and the second entry should be made in balance sheet. 4. In view of the above, assessment in case of the assessee for A.Y. 2013-14 has escaped income on account of accrued export incentive, interest and claims which were not routed through Profit and loss account to the tune of Rs. Rs.5,30,92,586/-. Thereby undersigned has reason to believe that the assessment has been escaped up to the amount of Rs. 5,30,92,586/-. 5. I am satisfied that this case is a fit case for re-opening the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act. In this case a return of income was filed for the year under consideration and scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was made on 29.03.2016. Since, 4 years from the end of the relevant year has expired in this case, the requirements to initiate proceeding u/ s 147 of the Act are reason to believe that income for the year under consideration has escaped assessment because of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the assessment year under consideration. It is pertinent to mention here that reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment for the year under consideration have been recorded in above para. 6. It is true that assessee had filed a copy of annual report and audited P&L a/c and Balance sheet along with return of income where various information /material were disclosed. However the requisite full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary/for assessment has not been made as noted above. It is also pertinent to note here that, even though the assessee has not produced books of accounts, annual report, audited P & L a/c. And balance sheet or other documents as mentioned above, the requisite material facts as noted above in the reasons for reopening were embedded in such a manner that material evidence could not be discovered by the A.O, accordingly attracting provisions of Explanation 1 of section 147 of the Act. 7. 7. In view of above, | am satisfied that the erstwhile Assessing Officer did have no occasion to form any opinion on this matter as neither this issue has been selected on CASS parameters nor arty specific query was raised. 8. It is evident from the above discussion that in this case, the issues under consideration was never examined by the AO during the course of regular assessment/reassessment. This fact is corroborated from the contents of notices issued by the AO was 143(2)/142(1) and other order sheet entries recorded during the 143(3)/147 proceedings. It is important to highlight here that material facts relevant for the assessment on the issue(s) under consideration were not filed during the course of assessment proceedings and the same may be embedded in annual report, audited P & L a/c, Balance Sheet and books of account in such @ manner that it would require due diligence by AO to extract these information, For aforesaid reasons, it is not a case of change of opinion by the AQ. 9. For the reasons cited above, the undersigned is of the opinion that it is the fit case for reopening the assessment u/s. 147 for the A.Y. 2013-14 in order to bring to tax the income which has escaped assessment as above. Hence necessary sanction to issue notice u/s 148 is requested from, the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad as per the provisions of section 151 of the Act.” 8. Considering the contents of the reasons recorded, it appears that it was found by the income tax authority on the basis of the verification of balance-sheet and profit and loss account that export incentives interest and claims were not routed through profit and loss account. Thus, the respondent has formed reason to believe that differential amount i.e. difference between the amounts reflected in the balance-sheet and income offered in the profit and loss account has escaped assessment. 9. Thus, the respondent has formed reason to believe that differential amount i.e. difference between the amounts reflected in the balance-sheet and income offered in the profit and loss account has escaped assessment. 9. Keeping in mind the aforesaid reasons, it is apt to take note of the admitted fact that the case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny and the then Assessing Officer after having considered details furnished by the petitioner such as, export sale as well as benefit in the form of duty drawback, duty of customs or central excise repaid and repayable, cash assistance, vide order dated 21.03.2015, framed the assessment under the provision of section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 meaning thereby, in our view, the Assessing Officer was in possession with all the relevant material including the profit and loss account as well as the balance-sheet at the time when the assessment order was framed under section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, the Revenue was well within their possession of all the relevant materials and thereby it is difficult to hold that the petitioner has not fully and truly disclosed the material facts. 10. In addition to the aforesaid, at the time when the then Assessing Officer has framed the assessment under the provisions of section 143(3) of the Act, all the documents were furnished by the petitioner and therefore now in absence of any new and/or tangible material, keeping in mind the contents of the reasons recorded if notice under section 148 is issued on the same material, in our considered opinion, the same is nothing but the mere change of opinion which is not permissible in eye of law. 11. Considering the said aspect, more particularly, in absence of failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts, the notice under section 148 of the Act is issued beyond the period of four years the same is not even otherwise permissible. 12. We answer the question accordingly. In the result, the present petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. Impugned notice dated 18.03.2020 is hereby quashed and set aside.