ORDER : Niral R. Mehta, J. 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the notice under Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) dated 31.3.2021 issued by the revenue authorities, by which the authority has sought to reopen assessment for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief facts of the case can be stated as under : 2.1 The petitioner along with other co-owners sold the agricultural land situated at village Varnama during the year under consideration for Rs.4,02,00,000/- by way of executing sale deed on 23.5.2014. The share of the petitioner in the sale consideration was Rs.1,39,00,000/-. 2.2 From the aforesaid sale consideration received by the petitioner, following properties were acquired : “(A) A residential property being Bungalow No.1, Shri Niketan Co. Op. housing society limited purchased vide two conveyance deeds executed on 02.03.13 viz. (1) one conveyance deed executed with Piyushbhai Kirtikumar Patel and Jagruti Piyush Patel (who owned 50% share in the said bungalow) for Rs.32,00,000/- and (2) one conveyance deed executed with Kirtikumar Shantibhai Patel (who owned balance 50% share in the said bungalow) for Rs.33,00,000/-. (B) Three agricultural lands vide three separate conveyance deeds executed on 28.05.15, 20.05.14 and 08.10.13 and share of the Petitioner in the newly acquired agricultural land aggregated to Rs.65,95,762/-.” 2.3 The petitioner filed return of income for the year under consideration on 17.3.2016 declaring income of Rs.4,71,910/- wherein the capital gain on sale of above-referred agricultural land was disclosed and the petitioner had also claimed deduction of Rs.65,95,762/- under Section 54B of the Act as well as deduction of Rs.68,63,149/- under Section 54F of the Act against the capital gain from the sale of said land in respect of above investment. 2.4 The petitioner, thereafter, revised return of income on 11.3.2017 declaring total income of Rs.4,71,910/-, wherein capital gain in question as well as the claim of deduction under Sections 54B and 54F of the Act were duly reflected. 2.5 The case of the petitioner was selected for limited scrutiny assessment by issuance of statutory notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 18.2.2017. The case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment with a view to verify ‘whether deduction from capital gains has been claimed correctly’. 2.5 The case of the petitioner was selected for limited scrutiny assessment by issuance of statutory notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 18.2.2017. The case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment with a view to verify ‘whether deduction from capital gains has been claimed correctly’. 2.6 The then Assessing Officer vide notice dated 16.10.2017 issued under Section 142(1) of the Act, called upon the petitioner to furnish various details and evidence as under : “(1) Complete ITR (income tax return) along with computation of income (point No. ‘ii’) (2) Necessary documentary evidences such as (I) copy of sale deed, (ii) cost of acquisition, mode and date of payment, source thereof along with supporting documents and (iii) copy of relevant account from books of accounts (Point No. ‘v’).” 2.7 The petitioner vide letter dated 9.11.2017 furnished various details and evidence, as under : “(1) Acknowledgment of return of income along with computation of income w.r.t. original return as well as revised return (Point No.4a); (2) Bank statements for the period from 01.04.12 to 31.03.15 i.e. whole period of receipt of sale proceedings (Point No.4b); (3) Conveyance deeds with respect to the following transactions (Point No.4c): (a) Agricultural land sold during the year under consideration; (b) Residential bungalow acquired out of sale proceeds thereof (in respect of which deduction under section 54F of the Act has been claimed); (c) Agricultural lands acquired out of sale proceeds thereof (in respect of which deduction under section 54B of the Act has been claimed); Explanation in relation to the fresh investments as well as claim of deduction under section 54B & 54F was furnished (Point No.4d).” 2.8 The then Assessing Officer issued show cause notice dated 24.11.2017 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the deduction under Section 54F of the Act should not be withdrawn. In furtherance thereto, the petitioner vide letter dated 29.11.2017 furnished a detailed justification of his claim of deduction under Sections 54F and 54B of the Act. 2.9 Thereafter, the assessment was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act by an order dated 13.12.2017 without disturbing the return of income filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, impugned notice dated 31.3.2021 under Section 148 of the Act came to be issued upon the petitioner seeking, inter-alia, to reopen the case of the petitioner. The respondent supplied copy of reasons for reopening vide letter dated 27.7.2021. Thereafter, impugned notice dated 31.3.2021 under Section 148 of the Act came to be issued upon the petitioner seeking, inter-alia, to reopen the case of the petitioner. The respondent supplied copy of reasons for reopening vide letter dated 27.7.2021. 2.10 The petitioner submitted his objections vide letter dated 3.9.2021. The respondent, however, vide letter dated 23.2.2022 disposed of the said 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 present petition for the aforesaid reliefs and also challenges the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act. 3. We have heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.Tushar Hemani with Ms.Vaibhavi Parikh for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Karan Sanghani for learned advocate Mrs.Kalpana Raval for the respondent. 4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Tushar Hemani for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned notice, has made the following submissions : (1) Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Tushar Hemani, at the outset, submitted that the impugned notice is patently illegal, contrary to law. He further submitted that by way of impugned notice, the respondent sought to reopen the assessment beyond the period of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year. He further submitted that assessment can be reopened beyond the period of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year only if the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of failure on part of petitioner (i) to make a return under Section 139 or in response to the notice issued under sub-section (1) of Section 142 or Section 148 and (ii) failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for the particular assessment year. Learned Senior Advocate, therefore, submitted that neither of the conditions are fulfilled which enable the authority to reopen the assessment beyond the period of 4 years. He, therefore, urged this Court to allow the petition only on the ground that the impugned notice is barred by limitation. (2) Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the assessment sought to be reopened on mere change of opinion. He submitted that to assume the jurisdiction under Section 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer has to have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. (2) Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the assessment sought to be reopened on mere change of opinion. He submitted that to assume the jurisdiction under Section 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer has to have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. It was further submitted that the Assessing Officer must have reasons to believe and secondly, such reason must be that of an honest and reasonable person based on reasonable ground and not on mere change of opinion. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that such reason to believe must have direct nexus with new and/or tangible material or information that has come in possession of the respondent after framing of the assessment. Learned Senior Advocate, relying on the reasons recorded, submitted that the respondent authority has merely relied upon the material already available on record and thereby, the same is not permissible in eye of law. (3) Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that even otherwise, the issue on which the reopening is sought, has already been scrutinized at the original assessment stage with regard to merits of claim of deduction under Sections 54B and 54F of the Act after going through all the materials provided by the petitioner at the time of scrutiny inquiry and thereby, the revenue authorities could not have assumed the jurisdiction under Section 148 of the Act just to examine another facet of the same claim. He, therefore, urged this Court to allow the present petition. (4) Lastly, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the sanction for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act as envisaged in Section 151 of the Act has not been obtained in correct perspective and the same has been granted without application of mind and in mechanical manner. Thus, the impugned notice under Section 148 of the act vitiates on the ground of improper sanction. 4.1 By making above submissions, learned Senior Advocate urged this Court to allow the present petition. 5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Karan Sanghani for the respondent, while supporting the impugned notice, has made the following submissions : (1) Learned advocate Mr.Karan Sanghani, at the outset, raised the preliminary objection in respect of maintaining the petition on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. He submitted that reopening of the assessment is sought well within 4 years from the relevant assessment i.e. 2015-16. He submitted that reopening of the assessment is sought well within 4 years from the relevant assessment i.e. 2015-16. He submitted that 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year ends on 31.3.2020. However, due to outbreak of covid-19 pandemic, time was extended by relaxation under the amendment Act and thereby, action under Section 148 of the Act was extended till 30.6.2021 and thereby, same cannot be said beyond the period of 4 years. Under the circumstances, present petition requested to be dismissed. (2) Learned advocate Mr.Karan Sanghani, relying upon the amended Section 147 of the Act, submitted that only precondition or requirement for the Assessing Officer to assume jurisdiction for reopening is to have ‘reasons to believe’. He, therefore, submitted that the Assessing Officer is only required to form an opinion before he proceeds to issue a notice. Accordingly, learned advocate Mr.Karan Sanghani submitted that having recorded the reasons, the Assessing Officer has already formed an opinion and belief that the provision of clause (c) of Explanation-2 to Section 147 of the Act is already attracted and, therefore, reopening sought is justified. He further submitted that plain reading of reasons recorded would suggest that the petitioner had sold the agricultural land on 21.4.2014 and the petitioner has claimed deduction of Rs.68,39,149/- for purchase of new house under Section 54F of the Act and deduction of Rs.65,95,762/- for purchase of new agricultural land under Section 54B of the Act. On perusal of the purchase deed, it seems that the house was purchased on 2.3.2013 and similarly, the agricultural land was purchased on 9.10.2013. Therefore, the claim under Sections 54B and 54F of the Act is not justified and excess deduction was claimed and allowed. (3) Learned advocate Mr.Karan Sanghani further submitted that the concerned Assessing Officer, during the original assessment proceedings, adopted the casual approach in respect of allowability of deduction under Sections 54F and 54B of the Act. According to learned advocate Mr.Karan Sanghani, though the material was available on record at the time of first assessment, no conscious material was made and a mistake appears to have been committed and thereby, it would not in any case create an embargo on the power of the Assessing Officer under Section 147 of the Act and the same would not fall within the category of change of opinion. 5.1 By making above submissions, learned advocate Mr.Karan Sanghani urged this Court to dismiss the present petition. 6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, a short question that falls for consideration of this Court is whether the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act based on reasons recorded can be said to be the change of opinion? 7. So as to decide the aforesaid question, at the outset, it is required to be kept in mind the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer so as to assume jurisdiction under Section 148 of the Act, which, therefore, is extracted herein-below : “2. Brief details of information collected/ received by the AO: The assessee had sold an agriculture land situated at Moje, Varnama, Block No. 285 for a consideration of Rs. 4,02,00,000/- on 21.04.2014 and his share therein was Rs. 1,39,00,000/-. The assessee has claimed deduction of Rs.68,39,149/- for purchase of new house u/s. 54F and deduction of Rs.65,95,762/- for purchase of new agriculture land u/s. 54B of the Act. On perusal of the purchase deeds, it is seen that the house was purchased on 02.03.2013 which was registered with two documents vide No.3550 & 3547 and this was not within a period of one year before the date of transfer and therefore, same is not allowed on account of violation of provisions of section 54F(1) of the Act. Similarly, the assessee purchased an agricultural land on 09.10.2013 and claimed deduction of Rs.65,95,762/- u/s. 54B of the Act on account of purchase of new pieces of agricultural lands. However, some of the lands were purchased prior to the date of transfer of impugned agricultural land, therefore, excess deduction was claimed & allowed u/s.54B of the Act. 3. Analysis of information collected/ received. The assessee had sold an agriculture land situated at Moje, Varnama, Block No. 285 for a consideration of Rs.4,02,00,000/- on 21.04.2014 and his share therein was Rs.1,39,00,000/- The assessee has claimed deduction of Rs.68,39,149/- for purchase of new house u/s. 54F and deduction of Rs.65,95,762/- for purchase of new agriculture land u/s. 548 of the Act. The assessee had sold an agriculture land situated at Moje, Varnama, Block No. 285 for a consideration of Rs.4,02,00,000/- on 21.04.2014 and his share therein was Rs.1,39,00,000/- The assessee has claimed deduction of Rs.68,39,149/- for purchase of new house u/s. 54F and deduction of Rs.65,95,762/- for purchase of new agriculture land u/s. 548 of the Act. One of the primary conditions for availing benefits under section 54F of the Act is that new property (residential house) should be purchased within a period of 1 year before or 2 years after the date of transfer or new property to be constructed within a period of three years after the date of transfer. Similarly, one of the primary conditions for availing benefits under section 54B of the Act is that within a period of two years from the date of transfer of old land the taxpayer should acquire another agricultural land. However, for the reasons/findings depicted in the forthcoming paragraphs, these conditions were not found fulfilled; therefore, deduction claimed under section 54F & 54B of the Act was irregular and requires to be disallowed. 4.2 To avail the benefit of section 54F of the Act, investment to purchase a new residential house must be made within a period of 1 year before the date of transfer of old asset. However, in the instant case, as evident from the above, the assessee has sold the agricultural Land Block No. 285, Old Survey No. 277, 278 ETC Moje Varnama Dist Vadodara on 23.05.2014 and purchased a new residential house at Bungalow No. 1 Shri Niketan Co. HSG Society RS No.318/1 320/2 TP Scheme No. 3 F.P. No. 19/B Katargam, Surat vide two separate deeds on 02.03.2013 i.e. prior to within a period of 01 year from the date of transfer. 4.3 Similarly, to avail the benefit of section 54B of the Act, investment to purchase a new agricultural land must be made within a period of 2 years from the date of transfer of old asset. However, in the instant case, as tabulate above, the assessee has sold the agricultural Land Block No. 285, Old Survey No. 277, 278 ETC Moje Varnama Dist. However, in the instant case, as tabulate above, the assessee has sold the agricultural Land Block No. 285, Old Survey No. 277, 278 ETC Moje Varnama Dist. Vadodara on 23.05.2014 and purchased three sets of agricultural land: Agricultural Land at Gam Kajpur, Vadodara BRA-8/RUL/915/2015 on 28.05.2015 Agricultural Land at Gam Kasor Tal Anand AND-1/5286/2014 on 20.05.2014 Agricultural Land at Gam Fathepura, Vadodara BRA-8/Rural/948/2013 on 08.10.2013 Agricultural land at Gam Kajpur, Vadodara was purchased within the stipulated period in the section 54B of the Act whereas Agricultural Lands at Gam Kasor and at Gam Fathepura were purchased prior to the date of transfer of impugned agricultural land i.e. after 23.05.2014. Thus, the assessee has not fulfilled the condition laid down as per section 54BF & 54B of the Act and has claimed excess deduction under these sections which was required to be disallowed and thus escaped from assessment. 5. Findings of the AO: Following conditions should be satisfied in order to avail exemption under section 54F of the Income- tax Act, 1961- * An exemption under section 54F is available only to an individual or a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). * An exemption is available towards the capital gain arisen on the transfer of any long term capital asset other than a residential house. * The 'net consideration' arisen on the transfer of long term capital asset is invested in either of the following manners - a. The amount is invested to purchase one residential house in India. It is compulsory that such investment is made within a period of 1 year before or 2 years after the date of transfer; or b. The amount is invested, within a period of three years, to construct one residential house in India. Further, following conditions should be satisfied to claim the benefit of section 54B of the I.T. Act, 1961: * The benefit of section 54B is available only to an individual or a HUF * The asset transferred should be agricultural land. The land may be a long-term capital asset or short- term capital asset * The agricultural land should be used by the individual or his parents for agricultural purpose at least for a period of two years immediately preceding the date of transfer. In case of HUF the land should be used by any member of HUF. The land may be a long-term capital asset or short- term capital asset * The agricultural land should be used by the individual or his parents for agricultural purpose at least for a period of two years immediately preceding the date of transfer. In case of HUF the land should be used by any member of HUF. * Within a period of two years from the date of transfer of old land the taxpayer should acquire another agricultural land. However, in the instant case, as depicted in the foregoing paragraph, the assessee had not fulfilled one of the required conditions. Therefore, deduction claimed under section 54F & 54B of the Act is found irregular and same is required to be disallowed. 6. Basis of forming reason to believe and details of escapement of income: As discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, (i) For claiming deduction u/s. 54F of the Act, investment to purchase a new residential house must be made within a period of 1 year before the date of transfer of old asset. However, in the instant case, the assessee has sold the agricultural Land on 23.05.2014 and purchased a new residential house vide two separate deeds on 02.03.2013 i.e. prior to within a period of 01 year from the date of transfer. (ii) For claiming deduction u/s.54B of the Act investment to purchase a new agricultural land must be made within a period of 2 years from the date of transfer of old asset. However, in the instant case, the assessee has sold the agricultural Land on 23.05.2014 and purchased three sets of agricultural land; out of which Agricultural land at Gam Kajpur, Vadodara was purchased within the stipulated period in the section 54B of the Act whereas Agricultural Lands at Gam Kasor and at Gam Fathepura were purchased on 20.05.2014 & 08.10.2013 which is prior to the date of transfer of impugned agricultural land i.e. after 23.05.2014. thus, the assessee had not fulfilled one of the conditions laid down in section 54F & 54B of the Act to avail the deduction under these sections. Therefore Sum of Rs.68,63,149/- and Rs.52,38,149/- are not allowable as deduction under these sections and these sums are chargeable to tax which had escaped the assessment for A.Y. 2015-16. Hence, notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act 1961 is to be issued for the A.Y. 2015-16.” 8. Therefore Sum of Rs.68,63,149/- and Rs.52,38,149/- are not allowable as deduction under these sections and these sums are chargeable to tax which had escaped the assessment for A.Y. 2015-16. Hence, notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act 1961 is to be issued for the A.Y. 2015-16.” 8. Bare perusal of the reasons for reopening, the reopening broadly on the ground that the petitioner has not fulfilled the conditions prescribed for claiming deduction under Sections 54B and 54F of the Act. The case of the respondent appears to be that the petitioner had sold the agricultural land during the year under consideration and claimed deduction under Section 54B and 54F of the Act against the capital gain earned on sale of such agricultural land. The respondent was of the view that the deduction claimed under Section 54F of the Act – investment in new residential house must be made before the date of transfer of original asset, whereas in the instant case, the petitioner has purchased the new residential house property to one before the transfer of original asset and thereby, deduction of Rs.68,63,149/- claimed under Section 54F of the Act is not allowable. The respondent further was of the view that for claiming deduction under Section 54B of the Act – investment in new agricultural land must be made within 2 years from the date of transfer of original asset, whereas in the instant case, the petitioner has purchased 3 agricultural lands for claiming deduction under Section 54B of the Act out of which 2 agricultural lands have been purchased prior to the date of transfer of original asset and thus, deduction of Rs.52,38,149/- claimed under Section 54B of the Act is not allowable. 9. Keeping in mind the aforesaid, if the facts of the present case are considered, it is an admitted position of fact that the case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 142(1) of the Act also issued upon the petitioner and the petitioner also furnished various details and evidence as under : “(1) Complete ITR (income tax return) along with computation of income (point No. ‘ii’) (2) Necessary documentary evidences such as (I) copy of sale deed, (ii) cost of acquisition, mode and date of payment, source thereof along with supporting documents and (iii) copy of relevant account from books of accounts (Point No. ‘v’).” 10. It further appears that in response to the aforesaid notice, the petitioner also submitted series of evidence as under : “(1) Acknowledgment of return of income along with computation of income w.r.t. original return as well as revised return (Point No.4a); (2) Bank statements for the period from 01.04.12 to 31.03.15 i.e. whole period of receipt of sale proceedings (Point No.4b); (3) Conveyance deeds with respect to the following transactions (Point No.4c): (a) Agricultural land sold during the year under consideration; (b) Residential bungalow acquired out of sale proceeds thereof (in respect of which deduction under section 54F of the Act has been claimed); (c) Agricultural lands acquired out of sale proceeds thereof (in respect of which deduction under section 54B of the Act has been claimed); Explanation in relation to the fresh investments as well as claim of deduction under section 54B & 54F was furnished (Point No.4d).” 11. The then Assessing Officer also issued show cause notice dated 24.11.2017 upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the deduction under Section 54 of the Act should not be withdrawn, to which the petitioner has furnished detailed submissions in relation to justification of claim under Sections 54B and 54F of the Act. The then Assessing Officer thereafter having considered all the materials on record and the submissions and the justification provided by the petitioner, framed the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act without disturbing the original return of income of the petitioner. 12. Considering the aforesaid admitted facts and keeping in mind the reasons so recorded for reopening, in our considered opinion, it cannot be said that the respondent authorities have come into possession of any information and/or any tangible material which suggests escapement of income. On the contrary, the reopening sought by the revenue authorities broadly based on the material already available on record and thereby, it cannot be said that the petitioner failed to disclose fully and truly all the material in respect to his assessment. Thus, the reopening based on the material already on record, is nothing but, in our considered, a mere change of opinion. The same is, therefore, not permissible in eye of law. The revenue authorities at the time of framing assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act has already considered the aspect of allowability of claim of deduction under Sections 54B and 54F of the Act. The same is, therefore, not permissible in eye of law. The revenue authorities at the time of framing assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act has already considered the aspect of allowability of claim of deduction under Sections 54B and 54F of the Act. Thus, the respondent authorities cannot reopen the reassessment on the ground that the then Assessing Officer has not inquired properly and/or adopted casual approach. In our view, issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act should be based on the reasons to believe which should have direct nexus with any new information and/ or tangible material which has come to the knowledge of the respondent authorities based on assessment proceedings. The revenue authorities, cannot under the guise of reasons to believe permit to reopen the case on the ground that the then Assessing Officer has not properly inquired in the proceedings. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in the instant case, the impugned notice seeking reopening of assessment year falls within the category of change of opinion, as at the relevant point of time, in the original inquiry, the petitioner has already made available all the documents and evidence so as to claim the deduction under Sections 54B and 54F of the Act. We answer the question accordingly. 13. Resultantly, the present petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed, by quashing and setting the impugned notice dated dated 31.3.2021.