ORDER : (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA) [1] By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the notice issued by the respondent – Revenue under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) dated 27th March 2021, thereby the reassessment sought to be initiated for the Assessment Year 2014- 15. [2] The brief facts of the case can be stated as under: [2.1] The petitioner is a cooperative society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act. The petitioner filed its original return of income for the Assessment Year 2014-15 on 25th November 2014 declaring total income at Rs.Nil. The case of the petitioner was then processed and also selected for scrutiny. A detailed scrutiny was undertaken. A notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 8th April 2016 was issued asking specific details relating to deduction claimed under Chapter VI-A. In furtherance thereto, the petitioner submitted complete details of deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Act vide its letter filed somewhere in May 2016. [2.2] The then Assessing Officer, having considered all the material produced on record, framed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act at Rs.14,805/- vide its order dated 16th May 2016. [2.3] The respondent – Revenue, vide its notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 27th March 2021, directed the petitioner to file return of income for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The petitioner, in compliance of the notice under Section 148 of the Act, filed return of income on 23rd April 2021 with a request to supply reasons recorded for reopening of the assessement. Upon such request being made, the petitioner was provided reasons recorded on 21st May 2021. [2.4] Based on such recording of reasons, the petitioner filed preliminary objections on 2nd June 2021 challenging the validity of notice under Section 148 of the Act. However, the respondent – Revenue has not disposed of the objections of the petitioner despite repeated requests. [3] Thus, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid, the petitioner has approached this Court for appropriate writ, order or directions. [4] We have heard learned advocate Mr. B. S. Soparkar for the petitioner – assessee and learned advocate Mr. Rudram Trivedi for learned advocate Mrs. Kalpana Raval for the respondent – Revenue. [5] Learned advocate Mr. [3] Thus, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid, the petitioner has approached this Court for appropriate writ, order or directions. [4] We have heard learned advocate Mr. B. S. Soparkar for the petitioner – assessee and learned advocate Mr. Rudram Trivedi for learned advocate Mrs. Kalpana Raval for the respondent – Revenue. [5] Learned advocate Mr. Soparkar, while assailing the impugned notice, has mainly made the following submissions: [5.1] Learned advocate Mr. Soparkar, at the outset, submitted that notice under Section 148 of the Act is ex facie illegal and without jurisdiction being issued admittedly beyond the period of limitation prescribed under statute. He, therefore, requested this Court to allow this petition on this count alone. [5.2] Learned advocate Mr. Soparkar, without prejudice to the aforesaid, vehemently submitted that even on merits, the said notice dated 27th March 2021 is not tenable in the eye of law. Mr. Soparkar submitted that referring to the reasons recorded, the reassessment is sought mere on change of opinion as during the regular course of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, the complete details with regard to Chapter VI-A were submitted before the authority and after verifying the same, the then Assessing Officer has framed assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, thus, the present notice based on the reasons recorded is nothing, but a change of opinion and the same is not permissible in the eye of law. [5.3] Learned advocate Mr. Soparkar further submitted that the petitioner has to disclose fully and truly all material facts on record, hence, the impugned notice issued beyond the period of four years from the end of assessment year is not tenable. He has placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tahnee Heights CHS Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer reported in [2023] 147 taxmann.com 335 (Bombay). [6] By making above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Soparkar requested this Court to allow the present petitioner as prayed for. [7] Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Rudram Trivedi for the respondent – Revenue, while supporting the impugned notice, has made the following submissions: [7.1] Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi submitted that the present petition is premature in nature. He further submitted that the only notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued and the petitioner will get ample opportunity to represent his case during the reassessment proceedings. Trivedi submitted that the present petition is premature in nature. He further submitted that the only notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued and the petitioner will get ample opportunity to represent his case during the reassessment proceedings. He further submitted that if in the event of any adversial order, the petitioner will have an alternative statutory remedy in terms of filing appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and thereafter, before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Under the circumstances, learned advocate Mr. Trivedi has requested this Court to dismiss this petition. [7.2] Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi vehemently submitted that the present case as canvassed by the assessee as change of opinion would not fall within the category of change of opinion. He has placed heavy reliance on the decision of Katlary Kariyana Merchant Sahkari Sarafi Mandali Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner of Incometax reported in [2022] 140 taxmann.com 602 (Gujarat). [8] By making above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Trivedi has requested to this Court to dismiss the present petition. [9] 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 the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties except what have been stated hereinabove. [10] Having heard the submissions and having gone through the materials produced on record, a short question that falls for consideration of this Court is whether the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act can be said to be legal? [11] So as to answer the aforesaid question, it would be apt to take note of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer justifying reopening of the assessment, which can thus be read as under: “Reasons for re-opening of the assessment in case of Deidyasan Industrial Co- op. Credit Society Ltd. for A.Y. 2014-15 u/s. 147 of the Act. 1. The assessee is a co-operative credit society, engaged in the business of providing credit facility to its members. Return of income for the impugned year filed by the assessee on 25.11.2014 declaring total income at Rs Nil which has been processed us. 143(1) of I.T. Act. Subsequently, assessment us. 143(3) of I.T. Act has been finalized on 16/05/2016 determining income of the assessee at Rs. 14,905/-. 2. Return of income for the impugned year filed by the assessee on 25.11.2014 declaring total income at Rs Nil which has been processed us. 143(1) of I.T. Act. Subsequently, assessment us. 143(3) of I.T. Act has been finalized on 16/05/2016 determining income of the assessee at Rs. 14,905/-. 2. This Office is in possession of the information from the records available the Office along with the material. On perusal of the available records it in off that the assessse had offered income of Rs. Nil after claiming deduction u/s. 80P(2) amounting to Rs 1,29,78,298/- which includes Rs 21,87,519/- earned as Co operative Bank FD interest and the same was allowed during assessment. However, on going through the computation of income, it was noticed that the assessee had claimed and was allowed deduction of Rs. 21,87,519/- u/s. 80P(2)(d) which was irregular. This has resulted into undersssessment of income of Rs. 6,75,943/-. 3. On verification of the available records, it is seen that the assessee had claimed and was allowed deduction of Rs. 21,87,519/- u/s.80P(2)(d) which was regular. This has resulted into underassessment of income of Rs 6,75,943/-. 4. A perusal and analysis of the information collected material available shows that income has escaped assessment and there no need for further enquiries u/s. 133(6) to establish the same. 5. On perusal of the available records, it is seen that the assessee had claimed and was allowed deduction of Rs.21,87,519/- u/s. 80P(2)(d) which was irregular. This has resulted into under assessment of income of Rs.6,75,943/-. 6. On the basis of the fact of the case records available with this office and from the above information, it is prima concluded the assessee had claimed and was allowed deduction of Rs. 21,87,519/- u/s. 80P(2) which was regular. This has resulted into underassessment of income of Rs 6,75,943/-. 7. No information of assets located outside India is available. 8. In this case a return of income was filed for the year under consideration on 25.11.2014 declaring total income at Rs. Nil which has been processed u/s. 143(1) of I.T. Act. Subsequently assessment u/s. 143(3) of I.T. Act has been finalized on 16/05/2016 determining income of the assessee at Rs.14,805/-. Accordingly, in this case, the only requirement to initiate proceeding u/s. 147 is reason to believe which has been recorded in the paragraphs above. Nil which has been processed u/s. 143(1) of I.T. Act. Subsequently assessment u/s. 143(3) of I.T. Act has been finalized on 16/05/2016 determining income of the assessee at Rs.14,805/-. Accordingly, in this case, the only requirement to initiate proceeding u/s. 147 is reason to believe which has been recorded in the paragraphs above. It is pertinent to mention here that in this case the assessee has filed return of income for the year under consideration and scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was made. In view of the above, provisions of clause (b) of explanation 2 of 147 are applicable to facts of this case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be a case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. It is evident from the above facts that the assessee had not truly and fully disclosed material facts necessary for his assessment for the year under consideration thereby necessitating reopening u/s. 147 of the Act It is true that the assessee has 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 pertinent to mention here that even though the assessee has produced books of accounts, annual report, audited P&L A/c and balance sheet or other evidence 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 AO and could have been discovered with due, diligence, accordingly attracting provisions of Explanation 1 of section 14 the Act. It is evident from the above discussion that in this case, the issues under consideration were never examined by the AO during the course of regular assessment. It is important highlight were that material facts relevant for the assessment on the issue under may be embedded in annual report, audited P&L A/C, balance sheet and books of account in such a manner that it would require due diligence by the AO to extract these information. For afore stated reasons it is not a case of change of opinion by the AO. In this case more than our years have lapsed from the end of assessment year under consideration. For afore stated reasons it is not a case of change of opinion by the AO. In this case more than our years have lapsed from the end of assessment year under consideration. Hence necessary/ sanction to issue notice u/s. 148 is to be obtained separately from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax as per the provisions of section 151 of the Act. 3. In view of the above, you may submit your response with supporting documents (if any) on the above mentioned issues to undersigned electronically in 'E-proceedings facility through your account in e-Filing website(www. incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in) at your convenience on or before 02/06/2021. 4. In course of assessment proceedings, if required specific questionnaire(s) or requisition(s) for information/document may be issued subsequently. 5. A brief note on E- Proceeding is enclosed for your kind reference. In case you require assistance in filing your response, you may contact toll free Call Centre number 1800 103 4285.” [12] On bare perusal of the aforesaid reasons, it emerges that the Revenue has relied upon the information which was already available on record. In our considered opinion, therefore, the reasons so recorded is not based on any new or tangible material. We also noticed that the Revenue has merely re-verified its record pertaining to the case of the assessee. [13] Keeping in mind the aforesaid, if we perused the reply of the assessee which was filed at the time of framing of assessment under Section 143(3) of the act, the entire details with regard to deduction claimed under Chapter VI-A were produced. Thus, we believe that it is not failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts before the Assessing Officer. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned notice dated 27th March 2021 under Section 148 of the Act, therefore, is clearly barred by limitation as prescribed under the statute. [14] So far as the contention with regard to change of opinion is concerned, as discussed hereinabove, the Assessing Officer has sought to reopen the assessment from the material already produced on record, meaning thereby, while issuing and recording of reasons, the Assessing Officer was not having any new and / or tangible material in his possession. [14] So far as the contention with regard to change of opinion is concerned, as discussed hereinabove, the Assessing Officer has sought to reopen the assessment from the material already produced on record, meaning thereby, while issuing and recording of reasons, the Assessing Officer was not having any new and / or tangible material in his possession. Thus, according to us, the assessment sought to be reopened on the material which was already available can be said to be change of opinion and the same is impermissible in the eye of law. So far as the decision relied upon by the Revenue in the case of Katlary Kariyana Merchant Sahkari Sarafi Mandali Ltd (supra) is concerned, the same is distinguishable on facts. In the said decision, the assessee therein has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts for assessment, however, in the instant case, admittedly, at the time of scrutiny of assessment, the assessee has supplied all the relevant details pertaining to the deduction claimed under Chapter VI-A and thus, the decision relied upon by the respondent – Revenue would not applicable on the facts of the present case and accordingly, we are unable to take the same view. [15] For the foregoing reasons, present petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned notice dated 27th March 2021. The present petition is, accordingly, disposed of.