JUDGMENT : (Bhargav D. Karia, J.) 1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tushar Hemani for learned advocate Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani for for learned Senior Standing Counsel Mrs. Kalpana K. Raval for the respondents. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani waives service of notice of rule for the respondent. 3. Having regard to the controversy in narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocate for the respective parties, the matter is take up for hearing. 4. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity and jurisdiction of the notice dated 23.03.2020 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 5. The petitioner filed return of income on 27.09.2013 showing total income of Rs. 2,33,750/- for the year under consideration. The same was taken-up for scrutiny assessment and assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 27.01.2016 accepting return of income. 5.1 Thereafter, the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. The petitioner filed return in response to the notice and requested for providing reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer provided reasons recorded which reads as under: “1. Brief details of the Assessee:- Assessee is a company bearing PAN:AABC06912F and has filed its return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 27.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 2,33,750/-. The assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the I.T.Act was passed on 27.01.2016 accepting returned income. 2. Brief details of Information collected/received by the AO: Information has been received from the Pr.CCIT, Gujarat, Anmedabad vide letter No.Pr.CC/ABD/CAP/Widening of Tax base/2015-16 dated 01.07.2015 through the CCIT-2, A’bad, Pr.CIT-3, A’bad and the Addl.CIT, Rangg-3(1), Ahmedabad vide letters dated 06.07.2015, 09.07.2015 and 24.07.2015 respectively about immovable property transaction amounting to Rs.1,85,81,151/-on 07.03.2013. 3. Analysis of information collected/received: The information received is about transaction made immovable property transaction of Rs. 1,85,81,151/- entered into on 07.03.2013 by the assessee during the year under consideration. 4. Enquiries made by the AO as sequel to information collected/received: i) The ITBA/ITD data available in this office is verified. ii) As per PAN data base, the case of the assessee is found to belong to the territorial jurisdiction of this ward. 1,85,81,151/- entered into on 07.03.2013 by the assessee during the year under consideration. 4. Enquiries made by the AO as sequel to information collected/received: i) The ITBA/ITD data available in this office is verified. ii) As per PAN data base, the case of the assessee is found to belong to the territorial jurisdiction of this ward. iii) The assessee has filed its return of income for A.Y.2013-14 on 27.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs 2,33,750/-. The assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act was passed on 27.01.2016 accepting returned income. iv) The information received through various letters is available on record. 5. Findings of the AO: The assessee has filed its return of Income for A.Y.2013-14 on 27.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.2,33,750/-. The assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act was passed on 27.01.2016 accepting returned income. However on perusal of the assessment records, it is noticed that the new information staled above, as not been examined and assessed tn earlier assessment in the assessment order finalized no discussion about verification of such transaction of immovable property is made. Thus, on verification of case records, details/documents submitted by the assessee, etc. it is noticed that the property transaction as alleged in the information is not verified in the original assessment finalized. It is, thus, noticed that this issue has not been considered and neither true nature of such transaction has been disclosed by the assessee. This leads to the belief that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment to the extent of Rs.1,85,81,151/-. It is held in the case of Ram Prasad v ITO [1995] 82 Taxman 199 (All.) that “there is nothing to Suggest that an Assessing Officer cannot reopen an assessment where he had failed to investigate and find out truth at initial stage”. 5.2 The petitioner filed objection on 05.01.2021 contending inter alia that issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act is without jurisdiction as the same was issued beyond the period of four years. It was further submitted that the petitioner has not purchased any immovable property amounting to Rs. 1,85,81,151/- as alleged in the reasons recorded but the petitioner has purchased the property of Rs. 1,65,10,000/- during the year under consideration which was clearly reflected in the audited balance-sheet filed along with return of income. It was further submitted that the petitioner has not purchased any immovable property amounting to Rs. 1,85,81,151/- as alleged in the reasons recorded but the petitioner has purchased the property of Rs. 1,65,10,000/- during the year under consideration which was clearly reflected in the audited balance-sheet filed along with return of income. It was also contended that during the course of the regular assessment, the Assessing Officer issued the notice under section 142(1) of the Act calling upon the information from the petitioner in respect of purchase of the immovable property and the petitioner by letter dated 29.07.2015 had provided the same which was considered by the Assessing Officer before passing the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act. It was therefore, submitted that the petitioner has disclosed fully and truly all the material facts for the assessment and there is no failure on the part of the petitioner. 5.3 The respondent-Assessing Officer however, did not dispose of the objections. The petitioner therefore, approached this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No. 4267/2021 which was disposed of by order dated 27.07.2021 directing the respondent- Assessing Officer to take into consideration the objections filed by the petitioner before proceeding further with the re-assessment proceedings. 5.4 Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the respondent- Assessing Officer disposed of the objection by two letters dated 02.09.2021 on the ground that there is escapement of Rs. 1,85,81,151/-. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this petition. 6. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Hemani for the petitioner submitted that the issue of purchase of immovable property was gone into by the Assessing Officer at the time of scrutiny assessment and there is no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts. He invited attention of the Court to the audited balance-sheet which reflects the purchase of the immovable property during the year amounting to Rs. 1,65,10,000/- consisting of land and Resort at Nalsarovar. He also referred to the investment of Rs. 2,78,51,000/- as part of the assets shown in the balancesheet which also pertains to purchase of land and building from Om World as advance paid by the petitioner. It was therefore, submitted that there is no investment of the petitioner of the amount of Rs. He also referred to the investment of Rs. 2,78,51,000/- as part of the assets shown in the balancesheet which also pertains to purchase of land and building from Om World as advance paid by the petitioner. It was therefore, submitted that there is no investment of the petitioner of the amount of Rs. 1,85,81,151/- as stated in the reasons recorded though the date of transaction i.e. 07.03.2013 is the correct date of transaction with regard to purchase of the property of Rs. 1,65,10,000/-. 6.1 It was further submitted that pursuant to the order passed by this Court the Assessing Officer has called for the information in the letter dated 22.09.2021 with the subject pertaining to the disposal of the objection for issuance of the notice under section 148 of the Act. It was pointed out from the said letter that the Assessing Officer has accepted the fact that the petitioner purchased immovable property on 07.03.2013 to the tune of Rs. 1,65,10,000/- from Om Land Reality Pvt. Ltd. It was further submitted that even in the show-cause notice issued for proposed addition along with draft assessment order by the respondent- Assessing Officer on 22.09.2021 also proposes the addition of Rs. 1,65,10,000/-. It was therefore, submitted that the reasons recorded by the respondent-Assessing Officer is based upon the incorrect information as there is no transaction of Rs. 1,85,81,151/- entered into by the petitioner and therefore, there is no escapement of any such income which is not disclosed by the petitioner. 6.2 It was further submitted that the respondent-Assessing Officer has now accepted the fact that there was a transaction of Rs. 1,65,10,000/- and clarification letter dated 22.09.2021 is also contrary to its earlier letter of the even date. It was therefore, submitted that the impugned notice issued by the respondent-Assessing Officer is nothing but a change of opinion in view of the fact that there is no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts of the assessment and the transaction in question was already scrutinized as the petitioner has furnished the details in response to the notice under section 142(1) issued during the course of the regular assessment. 7. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. 7. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Sanghani submitted that though the assessee has filed the return for the Assessment Year 2013-14 and the assessment was finalized under section 143(3) of the Act, there is no discussion about the verification of such transaction or immovable property. It was further submitted that the Assessing Officer only examined the details available on the record and thereafter has issued the notice under section 148 of the Act after application of mind on the basis of the facts placed before him. It was therefore, submitted that there was possession of new tangible material gathered by the Assessing Officer and on basis of such material, he has formed a belief that there is escapement of income. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court Gruh Finance Ltd vs Jt. CIT reported in (2000) 161 CTR (Guj.) 100 in support of his submissions. 7.1 It was therefore submitted that no interference be made by this Court while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the petitioner would have alternative efficacious remedy to challenge the assessment order passed pursuant to the impugned notice issued under section 148 of the Act. 8. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that during the course of the assessment proceedings, there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts inasmuch as pursuant to the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act, the petitioner has filed a detailed reply on 08.12.2015 providing details with regard to purchase of immovable property and payment of advance to the Om Land Reality Pvt. Ltd. 9. The Assessing Officer, after considering the details, has accepted the return income and passed the order under section 143(3) of the Act. 10. Moreover, on perusal of the reasons recorded it clearly reflects wrong figure of Rs. 1,85,81,151/- in relation to the immovable property transaction carried out by the petitioner on 07.03.2013. This fact is further fortified by the Assessing Officer in the communication dated 22.09.2021 as well as show-cause notice issued on the same date for proposed addition of Rs. 1,65,10,000/- in the re-assessment proceedings. 11. 1,85,81,151/- in relation to the immovable property transaction carried out by the petitioner on 07.03.2013. This fact is further fortified by the Assessing Officer in the communication dated 22.09.2021 as well as show-cause notice issued on the same date for proposed addition of Rs. 1,65,10,000/- in the re-assessment proceedings. 11. It is therefore, apparent that the respondent-Assessing Officer has issued the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act only on the basis of the borrowed satisfaction without having any live nexus with the facts on record, more particularly, when the transactions in question are duly reflected in the books of accounts in form of audited balancesheet as well as in reply to the notice 142(1) of the Act during the course of the regular scrutiny assessment. We are therefore of the opinion that as there is no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose truly and fully all material facts during the regular assessment and admittedly, the impugned notice is issued beyond the period of four years, as per proviso of 147 of the Act, the same would be without jurisdiction. The impugned notice is therefore quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.