JUDGMENT : Jitendra Jain, J. 1. Rule. By consent of the parties, since pleadings are completed, taken up for final disposal. By consent of the parties, both the writ petitions are disposed of by common order since the issue involved is identical. We propose to treat Writ Petition No.2771 of 2022 as a lead matter. 2. The petitioner challenges notice dated 25 March 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2013-14. Brief facts : 3. The petitioner is engaged in the business of real estate and has filed his return of income on 27 September 2013 declaring total income of Rs.54,91,960/-. On 31 December 2015, an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act came to be passed accepting the return income. Proceedings u/s 263 : 4. On 29 November 2017, a notice under Section 263 of the Act came to be issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax on the ground that M/s. Orchid Builders and Developers has sold 6 flats on behalf of the petitioner for Rs.2,74,94,950/-. However, the same is not reflected in the profit and loss account for the year ending 31 March 2013. The notice further seeks to examine disallowance on account of interest payment and proposes to examine income from house property which wwaass nnoott ooffffeerreedd ffoorr ttaaxx.. TThhee ppeettiittiioonneerr ffiilleedd hhiiss rreeppllyy ttoo tthhee ssaaiidd sshhooww cause notice vide letter dated 1 March 2018. On 16 March 2018, an order under Section 263 was passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax setting aside the assessment order with a direction to conduct proper inquiries, investigation and examine all the issues raised in 263 notice and pass a fresh order. Pursuant to the said direction, Assessing Officer on, 14 December 2018, passed an assessment order under Section 143 (3) read with Section 263 assessing income of the petitioner at Rs.57,06,250/- by making additions on account of notional rent under the head ‘income from house property.’ Proceedings u/s 148 : 5. On 25 March 2021, a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to file his return of income for assessment year 2013-14 since the respondents proposed to reassess the income under Section 147 of the Act. The petitioner on 4 January 2022 filed his return of income in compliance with the said impugned notice. The petitioner on 4 January 2022 filed his return of income in compliance with the said impugned notice. On a request being made by the petitioner, the reasons recorded for reopening the case were furnished on 22 March 2021. The petitioner vide letter dated 2 March 2022 objected to the reasons for reopening on the ground that the issue for which the reopening is sought was subject matter of 263 proceedings and, therefore, reopening is bad- in-law. The petitioner also raised objection with respect to there being no failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts and further challenged the sanction obtained from the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 151 of the Act. On 11 March 2022, an order rejecting the objections came to be passed. In the said order, the reopening was justified on the grounds that, if in the original assessment, the income liable to tax has escaped assessment due to oversight, inadvertence or a mistake committed by the Assessing Officer, the assessment can be reopened on the basis of information obtained from the original assessment. In the said order, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Co. Vs. CIT , [ (1976) 102 ITR 287 (SC)] 6. It is on the above backdrop that the petitioner is before us challenging the order rejecting the objections dated 11 March 2022 and notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 25 March 2021. 7. Ms. Pawar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the absence of any failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts, the impugned proceedings cannot be initiated and for this submission, she placed reliance on the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act. She further relied upon the third proviso to Section 147 of the Act and submitted that since in the instant case an order under Section 263 of the Act was passed and there being no fresh material to reopen the case, the impugned proceedings were bad-in-law. 8. Ms. Pawar further submitted that the issue for which reopening is sought was subject matter of not only proceedings under Section 263 of the Act but also an order passed pursuant to the directions under Section 263 of the Act and, therefore, the impugned proceedings are based on change of opinion. 8. Ms. Pawar further submitted that the issue for which reopening is sought was subject matter of not only proceedings under Section 263 of the Act but also an order passed pursuant to the directions under Section 263 of the Act and, therefore, the impugned proceedings are based on change of opinion. She further submitted that the reliance placed by the respondent on the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Co. (supra) is no more a good law as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax , [ (1979) 2 Taxman 197 (SC)] . Therefore, she submitted that the impugned notice should be quashed. 9. In support of her submissions, she relied upon the following case laws :- i. ACIT, Circle 12(3)(2) Vs Marico Ltd. , [(2021) 133 taxmann.com 122 (SC)] ii. CIT, Delhi Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. , [ (2010) 187 Taxman 312 (SC)] iii. PCIT Vs State Bank of India , [(2022) 145 taxmann.com 33 (SC)] iv. State Bank of India Vs ACIT, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai, (2019) 103 taxmann.com 164 (Bombay) v. ITO Vs Lakhmani Mewal Das , [ (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC)] vi. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs R.B.Wadkar , [(2004) 137 Taxman 479 (Bombay)] vii. Chandra Global Finance Ltd. Vs ITO , [(2024) 168 taxmann.com 182 (Delhi)] viii. Saravana Stocks Investments (P.) Ltd Vs DCIT , [(2021) 133 taxmann.com 315 (Madras)] ix. Samet Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT , [(2022) 140 taxmann.com 342 (Bombay)] x. Tumkur Minerals (P.) Ltd. Vs JCIT , [(2022) 145 taxmann.com 397 (Bombay)] xi. HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs ACIT , [(2022) 136 taxmann.com 69 (Bombay)] 10. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent defended the impugned proceedings by relying upon the reasons recorded and the order rejecting the objections. He submitted and prayed that the petition be dismissed. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent and with their assistance have perused the documents on record. 12. Admittedly, the reopening is sought to be done beyond the period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The reasons for reopening as furnished to the petitioner reads as under:- 6 (2019) 103 taxmann.com 164 (Bombay) 13. 12. Admittedly, the reopening is sought to be done beyond the period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The reasons for reopening as furnished to the petitioner reads as under:- 6 (2019) 103 taxmann.com 164 (Bombay) 13. At the outset, the reasons recorded seek to reopen the assessment which was made under Section 143(3) of the Act on 31 December 2015. It is important to note at this stage that, this order of 31 December 2015 was set aside by the PCIT in revisional proceedings under Section 263 of the Act vide order dated 16 March 2018. The assessing officer passed a fresh assessment order pursuant to the direction issued under Section 263 of the Act on 14 December 2018. Therefore, the original assessment dated 31 December 2015 which is sought to be reopened did not exist on the date of recording the reasons and, therefore, on this ground itself the proceedings are bad in law. The assessing officer glossed over the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act on 14 December 2018 which was the order in existence on the date of recording reasons and sought to reopen the assessment order which was not in existence. 14. In any event, the issues raised in the reasons recorded for reopening are identical to the reasons for which revisional proceedings under Section 263 of the Act were initiated by the PCIT on 29 November 2017. The said revisional order under Section 263 of the Act was passed on 16 March 2018 directing the assessing officer to examine the issues raised in the revisional proceedings and pass a fresh order. Therefore, on the same ground the assessing officer is not justified to reopen the case, moreso, after a period of 4 years. In our view, even the approving authority should not have given his approval after he himself having ppaasssseedd tthhee oorrddeerr uunnddeerr SSeeccttiioonn 226633 ooff tthhee AAcctt.. TThheerreeffoorree,, eevveenn oonn tthhiiss ground since the issues were subject matter of 263 proceedings, the impugned proceedings are barred by 3rd proviso of Section 147 of the Act. 15. The reasons recorded initially states that there has been no disclosure of material facts necessary in the assessment but, what were the material facts which were not disclosed has not been stated. 15. The reasons recorded initially states that there has been no disclosure of material facts necessary in the assessment but, what were the material facts which were not disclosed has not been stated. On perusal of the reasons recorded it is observed that the officer himself has recorded that it is based on the perusal of records and verification of records that reopening proceedings are initiated. In our view, on this ground also the pre-condition required of failure to disclose truly and material facts necessary for the assessment is not satisfied and therefore, the proceedings are bad in law as per the proviso of Section 147 of the Act. 16. It is important to note that in the order rejecting the objections, the officer states that the reopening is permissible if in the original assessment the Assessing Officer has through inadvertence oversight ggiivveenn rreelliieeff.. IInn oouurr vviieeww,, iiff tthhaatt bbee tthhee ccaassee,, tthheenn,, cceerrttaaiinnllyy nnoo proceedings could have been initiated by the respondent by virtue of first proviso to Section 147 of the Act because according to the respondent, it is the mistake of the predecessor Officer and, therefore, the issue of any failure to disclose fully and truly all necessary facts for the assessment by the petitioner would not arise. In any case, pursuant to the direction under Section 263 of the Act, the Assessing Officer examined all the issues which are also subject matter of the present proceedings and passed the assessment order on 14 December 2018. Therefore, any attempt now to re-agitate the issues which were already examined while passing the assessment order pursuant to directions in 226633 pprroocceeeeddiinnggss wwoouulldd bbee bbaasseedd oonn cchhaannggee ooff ooppiinniioonn aanndd rreevviieeww ooff tthhee earlier order which is not permissible. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner is justified on relying upon the decision in the case of Samet Estates (P.) Ltd. (Supra) where on very similar ground where 263 proceedings were initiated, reopening was quashed by Co-ordinate bench of this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in stating that the decision in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Co. (Supra) relied upon by the respondent is no more a good law post the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Express Newspaper (Supra). 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in stating that the decision in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Co. (Supra) relied upon by the respondent is no more a good law post the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Express Newspaper (Supra). 18. In view of the above, the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2013-14 dated 25 March 2021 is quashed and set aside. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Writ Petition No.2021 of 2022 :- 19. For the reasons recorded in Writ Petition No.2771 of 2022 the notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 25 March 2021 for the assessment year 2014-15 is also quashed and set aside. 20. Both the petitions are disposed of. (Jitendra Jain, J.) (M. S. Sonak, J.)