ORDER : 1. By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, he petitioner has challenged notice dated 27th March, 2021 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) as well as order dated 11th December, 2021 by which the objection raised by the petitioner was rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case can be stated as under. 2.1 The petitioner filed return of income on 26th September, 2013 declaring his income at Rs.12,09,758/- for the A.Y. 2013-14. The said return was thoroughly processed by the department and ultimately, scrutiny assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was framed on 27th March, 2015. 2.2 On 26th June, 2015 notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued directing, inter alia, calling upon the petitioner to furnish several details. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed several replies on 09th July, 2015, 16th July, 2015 and 01st September, 2015. 2.3 The respondent vide notice dated 14th October, 2015 again called upon the petitioner to provide further details. In furtherance thereof, the petitioner filed various replies on 20th October, 2015, 29th October, 2015, 30th October, 2015, 05th November, 2015, 30th November, 2015 and 29th December, 2015. 2.4 On 23rd June, 2014 the petitioner submitted details of service tax challan under VCES Scheme to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax. 2.5 On 31st December, 2015 assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act came to be passed. 2.6 On 27th March, 2021 the petitioner received notice under Section 148 of the Act. The petitioner received a copy of reasons recorded on 09th June, 2021. Pursuant thereto, petitioner vide letter dated 24th July, 2021 filed objections against the reasons for reopening. However, the said objections came to be rejected by the respondent vide order dated 11th December, 2021. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition for appropriate relief. 4. We have heard learned advocate Mr. Darshan Patel for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Nikunt Raval for the respondent. 4.1 Since the coordinate Bench of this Court has issued notice for final disposal, the present petition, with the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Darshan Patel for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Nikunt Raval for the respondent. 4.1 Since the coordinate Bench of this Court has issued notice for final disposal, the present petition, with the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Darshan Patel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned notice and the order, has made following submissions. 5.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that it is not the case of the authority as per the reasons recorded that the petitioner has not made true and full disclosure while filing return or during the course of assessment proceedings. Thus, in absence of any fault on part of the petitioner, it is not permissible in eye of law to reopen the scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. Accordingly, learned advocate has requested this Court to allow the petition as prayed for. 5.2 Learned advocate Mr. Patel for the petitioner next submitted that the entire reopening is nothing but a mere change of opinion. To substantiate his contention, learned advocate has emphatically submitted that at the time of original scrutiny proceedings, specific queries were raised with regard to payment of service tax and the same was considered under Section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, learned advocate submitted that reopening is not based on any fresh and tangible material and thereby the same is said to be mere change of opinion. He, therefore, requested to allow the petition as prayed for. 5.3 Learned advocate for the petitioner lastly submitted that the sanction under Section 151 as envisaged was granted by the authority in a mechanical manner, without application of mind and recording reasons, and thereby initiation of proceedings based on improper sanction deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5.4 By making the above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Darshan Patel for the petitioner requested this Court to allow the petition as prayed for. 6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Nikunt Raval appearing for the respondent, while supporting the impugned notice and the order, has made the following submissions. 6.1 Learned advocate for the respondent vehemently submitted that the present petition is premature in nature. He further submitted that the assessment order is yet to be framed and the petitioner, if aggrieved thereof, can challenge the same before the CIT (A) and thereafter to the appellate tribunal. 6.1 Learned advocate for the respondent vehemently submitted that the present petition is premature in nature. He further submitted that the assessment order is yet to be framed and the petitioner, if aggrieved thereof, can challenge the same before the CIT (A) and thereafter to the appellate tribunal. Accordingly, learned advocate submitted that the petitioner has statutory alternative efficacious remedy available under the law and therefore, the present petition may not be entertained. 6.2 Learned advocate further submitted that there was complete failure on part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly the facts and materials necessary for the assessment. He submitted that the assessee had not paid service tax amounting to Rs.64,01,024/- during the year and the same was shown as tax and duties payable. Learned advocate further submitted that the assessee had opted VCES for service tax and was liable to pay service tax in excess to the amount already paid since September, 2009 amounting to Rs.01,08,38,322/- and not paid before filing of the return. Thereby, the same requires to be taxed by adding the same in the total income. He further submitted that on verification of notes on accounts, for 3CD/3CB, the assessee had not paid service tax amounting to Rs.64,01,024/- during the year and the Assessing Officer has rightly recorded reason for the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on account of omission on part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the facts. 6.3 Learned advocate for the respondent submitted that initiation of reassessment proceedings cannot be said to be mere change of opinion. He vehemently submitted that the Assessing Officer was in possession of the information that the assessee had opted VCES under the service tax, as per which the assessee has not paid amount of Rs.64,01,024/- collected from its clients during the period relevant to the assessment under consideration. According to learned advocate, only because the assessee’s case was scrutinised under Section 143(3) of the Act and assessee had submitted audited report, balance-sheet and P&L Account, it cannot be said that the assessee had made true and full disclosure of facts. Thereby, upon firm opinion being received with regard to non-payment of service tax to the tune of Rs.64,01,024/- the Assessing Officer was justified in reassessment by assuming jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act. He, therefore, requested this Court to dismiss the petition. Thereby, upon firm opinion being received with regard to non-payment of service tax to the tune of Rs.64,01,024/- the Assessing Officer was justified in reassessment by assuming jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act. He, therefore, requested this Court to dismiss the petition. 6.4 Learned advocate for the Respondent lastly submitted that the sanction as envisaged under Section 151 was accorded by the competent authority after having satisfied itself by going through the materials produced on record by the Assessing Officer and therefore, the said sanction cannot, in any manner, said to be invalid and/or improper. Thus, learned advocate requested this Court to dismiss the petition. 7. In rejoinder, learned advocate for the petitioner Mr. Patel pointed out to this Court so as to establish that reopening is based on mere change of opinion by relying upon page Nos. 44, 47, 59, 60, 61, 64 and 72, by which each and every queries that were raised at the time of assessment proceedings were answered by the petitioner by producing cogent material. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that by revisiting the said material, reopening sought to be initiated and thereby the same is nothing but mere change of opinion. In the reasons recorded itself, the authority has stated that “reopening is carried out on a perusal of the case record.” Thus, there is no new information and/or tangible material came in possession but it was on the basis of materials already produced on record and after revisiting the same, jurisdiction sought to be assumed under Section 147 of the Act which, according to the learned advocate for the petitioner, is not permissible in eye of law. 8. We have heard learned advocates for the respective parties and have gone through the materials produced on record in detail. No other and/or further submissions have been canvassed by learned advocates for the respective parties except what is stated hereinabove. 9. Having considered the submissions and materials produced on record, the short question that falls for consideration before this Court is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act by the Assessing Officer can be said to be a change of opinion? 10. So as to decide the aforesaid question, in our considered opinion, at the outset, a closer look to reasons so recorded for reopening of the assessment is required to be made. 10. So as to decide the aforesaid question, in our considered opinion, at the outset, a closer look to reasons so recorded for reopening of the assessment is required to be made. The relevant extract of the reasons recorded is reproduced hereinafter as under: “1. The assessee is a Individual and e- filed its return of income in respect of AY 2013-14 on 26.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 11,01,040/-. 2. This office is in possession of the information from the case records available with the office along with materials. On perusal of the available records, it is found that assessee had not paid service tax amounting to Rs.64,01,024/- during the year and same was shown in Balance Sheet as Taxes and Duties payable. This has resulted into under- assessment of income of Rs.64,01,024/-. 3. On verification of case records, it is found that the assessee had opted VCES for service tax and was liable to pay service tax in excess to the amount already paid since September 2009 amounting to Rs.1,08,38,322/- and it had collected the amount of Rs.64,01,024/- from his clients. This has resulted into under-assessment of income of Rs.64,01,024/- 4. A perusal and analysis of the information collected/material available on ITS details of AIR transaction and copy of balance sheet, profit and loss a/c and submission received are available in case records. The information received is processed and examined from the assessment records and material available on record with the department. 5. On perusal of the available records, it is seen that the assessee had assessee had not paid service tax amounting to Rs.64,01,024/- during the year and same was shown in Balance Sheet as Taxes and Duties payable. The assessee had opted VCES for service tax and was liable to pay service tax in excess to the amount already paid since September 2009 amounting to Rs.1,08,38,322/- and it had collected the amount of Rs.64,01,024/- from his clients. As assessee had collected the amount of Rs.64,01,024/- and not paid the same before filling the return, it was required to be taxed and added to the total income of the assessee but by not doing so it resulted in under assessment of Rs.64,01,024. This has resulted into under-assessment of income of Rs.64,01,024/-. 6. As assessee had collected the amount of Rs.64,01,024/- and not paid the same before filling the return, it was required to be taxed and added to the total income of the assessee but by not doing so it resulted in under assessment of Rs.64,01,024. This has resulted into under-assessment of income of Rs.64,01,024/-. 6. On verification of Notes on account for 3CD/3CB assessee had not paid service tax amounting to Rs.64,01,024/- during the year and same was shown in Balance Sheet as Taxes and Duties payable. This has resulted into under-assessment of income of Rs.64,01,024/-, I am, therefore, satisfied that the income chargeable to tax of the assessee has escaped assessment for reason of omission on the part of the assessee to ROI u/s. 139 of the Income tax Act, 1961. 7. No information of assets located outside India is available.” 10.1 Considering the aforesaid reasons recorded, it appears that the reassessment sought to be initiated mainly on the basis that it has been found that the assessee had not paid service tax amounting to Rs.64,01,024/- during the year and the same was shown in the balance-sheet as tax and duties payable. A further scrutiny of the reasons so recorded would also reveal that the said reasons appears to have been recorded on verification of the case records, more particularly with regard to service tax issue. Meaning thereby, the authorities have revisited the case records already available with them. Thus, we are of the opinion that as such the authority has not come in the possession of any new information and/or any other tangible material. A bare perusal of the entire reasons recorded would suggest that initiation of reopening is sought on the basis of re-verification of material already on record. 10.2 We also satisfied ourselves by taking into consideration the relevant documentary evidence pointed out by learned advocate for the petitioner that each and every query including the issue of service tax raised in the original assessment proceedings were satisfied and all the relevant materials and information were disclosed truly and fully. The authority has already gone into the aspect of issue of service tax at the time of assessment proceedings and passing the order under Section 143(3) of the Act. 10.3 Thus, in our considered opinion, jurisdiction assumed by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 of the Act is nothing but a change of opinion. The authority has already gone into the aspect of issue of service tax at the time of assessment proceedings and passing the order under Section 143(3) of the Act. 10.3 Thus, in our considered opinion, jurisdiction assumed by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 of the Act is nothing but a change of opinion. It is trite law that assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act is impermissible on the basis of mere change of opinion. We answer the question accordingly. 11. Resultantly, the present petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed by quashing the impugned notice dated 27th March, 2021 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as order dated 11th December, 2021 rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner.