ORDER : Niral R. Mehta, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. B.S. Soparkar for the petitioner and learned advocate Ms. Maithili Mehta for the respondent. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Ms. Maithili Mehta waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent. 3. By these petitions, the petitioner has challenged the notices dated 30th March 2021 / 31st March 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) by the respondent – Assessing Officer seeking to reopen the completed assessment for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is assessed to tax regularly. The petitioner filed its return of income for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-27 declaring total income as under : Sr. No. Assessment Years Amount of Income (In Rs.) 1. 2014-15 (-) 50,91,28,151/- 2. 2015-16 NIL 3. 2016-17 NIL 4.1 However, the petitioner paid tax on book profit under the MAT provisions of the Act as under : Sr. No. Assessment Years Amount of book profit (In Rs.) Amount of tax paid (In Rs.) 1. 2014-15 8,14,16,667/- 1,62,89,643/- 2. 2015-16 109,32,88,012/- 22,91,58,633/- 3. 2016-17 173,54,38,817/- 37,03,70,410/- 4.2 The case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny and assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) of the Act assessing total income as under : Sr. No. Assessment Years Date of Assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) of the Act Total income assessed (In Rs.) Book profit under the provisions (In Rs.) 1. 2014-15 09.12.2016 (-)41,79,95,346/- 17,25,49,472/- 2. 2015-16 30.11.2017 NIL 122,88,68,012/- 3. 2016-17 19.12.2018 34,54,76,065/- 182,55,67,367/- 4.3 For the Assessment Year 2016-17, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) against the assessment order, which was partly allowed by order dated 8th January 2020. 4.4 Thereafter, the respondent issued notice dated 30th March 2021 / 31st March 2021 under Section 148(3) of the Act reopening the assessment for all the three assessment years on the basis of the information received on account of search conducted at the premises of one Mr. Hitesh Jain under Section 132 of the Act on 23rd May 2017. On the basis of the statement of Mr. Hitesh Jain under Section 132 of the Act on 23rd May 2017. On the basis of the statement of Mr. Hitesh Jain, it was found that he was doing activity of providing accommodation entries to the various beneficiaries with the help of approximately 39 shell / papers concerns and they do not exist on the address provided and the petitioner was one of the beneficiaries. 4.5 The petitioner thereupon filed return of income and copies of reasons recorded were provided by the respondent – Assessing Officer. The petitioner raised various objections and requested the respondent to drop the proceedings. The said objections were disposed of by the respondent rejecting the same. 5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred these petitions. 5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Soparkar for the petitioner submitted that the impugned notices are issued by the respondent – Assessing Officer without application of mind and only on the basis of the information is self-satisfactory and no inquiry is required. It was also submitted that the respondent – Assessing Officer ought to have formed “reason to believe” so as to show and communicate as to why and what grounds / cause the income has escaped assessment. It was submitted that there is no live link between the material found and the escapement of income inasmuch as in absence of any tangible material on record, the Assessing Officer would not assume the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. 5.2 It was submitted that the sanction granted for reopening the assessment is in mechanical manner as the reasons recorded are vague and do not show as to how the petitioner has been benefited. 5.3 Learned advocate Mr. Soparkar submitted that the petitioner – company has filed return of loss / Nil income under the normal provisions of the Act and has paid tax on book profit computed under the MAT provisions of the Act and even after making proposed addition to income, the petitioner would still be governed by the provisions under Section 115JB of the Act and would be assessed on the same book profit resulting into no escaped assessment and it would make no difference to the ultimate tax liability of the assessee. 5.4 From the facts available on record, the petitioner – assessee for the three assessment years under consideration has paid tax on book profit and even if the alleged escaped income would be made, then there would be no difference in the tax liability of the petitioner as per the provisions under Section 115JB of the Act. The respondent – Assessing Officer has formed “reason to believe” with regard to escapement of income for the Assessment Years as under : Sr. No. Assessment Years Escapement of Income (In Rs.) As against Amount of book profit (In Rs.) 1. 2014-15 3,73,87,791/- 8,14,16667/- 2. 2015-16 1,66,00,822/- 109,32,88,012/- 3. 2016-17 2,14,26,708/- 173,54,38,817/- 6. Learned advocate Ms. Maithili Mehta for the respondent submitted that the present petitions are filed at a premature stage inasmuch as only notice under Section 148 of the Act read with Section 147 of the Act have been issued to the petitioner. Learned advocate Ms. Mehta submitted that in the event, if the petitioner is dissatisfied, the petitioner would have an alternative efficacious remedy by way of an appeal to the CIT(A) and thereafter to the Tribunal as per the provisions of the Act. Thus, learned advocate Ms. Mehta submitted that on this ground alone, present petitions deserve to be dismissed. 6.1 Learned advocate Ms. Mehta submitted that as per the information on insight portal, a search action under Section 132 of the Act was conducted at the premises of Shri Hitesh Jain, Proprietor of M/s. Mittersain Rajesh Kumar, Karnal on 23rd May 2017. During the search proceedings, some incriminating documents were found. It was also noticed that Shri Hitesh Jain was involved in providing accommodation entries by issuing bogus bills to various beneficiaries with the help of approximately 39 shell / paper concerns and the assessee is found to be one of the beneficiaries having the transaction of Rs.2,14,26,708/- and therefore, having noticed the entire information, it appears that the assessee has undertaken transaction with M/s. Mittersain Rajesh Kumar, Proprietor of Hitesh Jain to the tune of Rs.2,14,26,708/- and thereby, it is believed that the said amount has escaped tax and the same requires to be brought to the tax. Thus, the aforesaid information was not available at the time when the original assessment proceedings was concluded and therefore, on the basis of the said new information, the Assessing Officer has perfectly justified in assumption of jurisdiction under Section 148 of the Act and hence, no interference is called for. 6.2 Learned advocate Ms. Mehta further submitted that relying upon the Explanation 3 of Section 147 of the Act, a contention was raised that the acceptance of income under Section 115JB of the Act has nothing to do with reopening of assessment and thereby, issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act is perfectly justified upon the reasons recorded based on the information received from the insight portal. 6.3 Learned advocate Ms. Mehta submitted that prerequisite of notice under Section 148 of the Act has duly been complied. She further submitted that the Assessing Officer recorded the reasons for reopening after proper application of mind on the basis of information and formed an opinion and had “reason to believe” that the income has escaped assessment. She submitted that sanction under Section 151 of the Act is also obtained from the competent authority and thereby, notices under Section 148 of the Act cannot be said to be defective and / or impermissible. 7. Having considering the submissions and material placed on record and considering the reasons recorded, it is apparent that the petitioner was assessed under the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act and has paid tax at the rate of 7.5% under the said section. Adding the amount calculated by the Assessing Officer towards the escaped income to the amounted computed under the ordinary provisions of the Act, the aggregate amount would be less than the amount of tax paid by the petitioner on being assessed under Section 115JB of the Act. Therefore, when the tax payable, as per the reasons recorded, is less than the amount paid by the petitioner under the assessment framed under Section 143(3) of the Act, the question of any income having assessed would not arise. Therefore, the reasons recorded itself would indicate that in fact no income has escaped assessment to form such belief. In such circumstances, the basic precondition for reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Act that the Assessing Officer should have “reason to believe” that income has escaped assessment is not satisfied. Therefore, the reasons recorded itself would indicate that in fact no income has escaped assessment to form such belief. In such circumstances, the basic precondition for reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Act that the Assessing Officer should have “reason to believe” that income has escaped assessment is not satisfied. The Assessing Officer, therefore, could not have assumed the jurisdiction to issue impugned notices under Section 148 of the Act and the impugned notices and the proceedings pursuant thereto cannot be sustained. 8. For the foregoing reasons, these petitions succeed and are accordingly allowed. The impugned notices dated 30th March 2021 / 31st March 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act as well as all the proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to cost.