JUDGMENT I. P. Mukerji J.-Sections 147 and 148 of Income-tax Act, 1961, and judgment of hon'ble Supreme Court of India in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO reported in [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC) are involved in this case. In above case, highest court opined, in form of clarification, that when notice under section 148 of said Act was issued, proper course of action for assessee was to file return and if he so desired to seek reasons for issuing notice. Assessing Officer was bound to furnish reasons within reasonable time to which assessee had right to file objections. Assessing Officer was bound to dispose of issue by passing speaking order. writ petitioner-assessee on July 15, 2013, received notice dated July 4, 2013, under section 148 of said Act for assessment year 2009-10. By letter dated July 19, 2013, he challenged legality of notice and asked for reasons. Furthermore, income-tax authorities were requested to treat return of income filed on September 29, 2009, as return in compliance with said notice. On October 31, 2013, Department issued notice under section 142(1) of said Act to writ petitioner. grievance of writ petitioner is this. Till date respondents have not communicated to him reasons to him in terms of above judgment of Supreme Court. What follows from examination of above Supreme Court decision is that at time of issuance of notice under section 148 of said Act, Assessing Officer should have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for any assessment year. There is no requirement to append reasons for such belief in notice under section 148. However, assessee on receipt of notice is required to file return and if he so desired to make request to Assessing Officer to furnish reasons for reopening of his assessment. assessee is entitled to counter those reasons by filing reply. This has to be adjudicated upon by Assessing Officer by reasoned order, before he proceeds to make assessment. reasons of Department are disclosed in paragraph 9 of their affidavit-in-opposition as follows: "For better appreciation of issue involved in this case, recorded reasons to believe is reproduced as under: (i) It was observed from assessment records that following expenses which were debited to accounts in respect of M/s. Prantik would attract provision of deduction of tax at source under section 194C of Income-tax Act 1961: (a) Printing charges Rs. 1,10,96,704 (b) Binding charges Rs. 97,74,436 (c) Lamination charges Rs. 17,00,684 (d) Advertisement Rs. 99,31,351 (ii) it was also observed from assessment folder that in respect of some ledger accounts, viz., M/s. Trirupati Binding Works. M/s. Maa Tara Book Binding Works and advertisement accounts for assessment year 2009-10, no deduction of TDS was made at time payments; (iii) verification of assessment records revealed that sum of Rs. 10,77,243 was debited as royalty in profit and loss account of M/s. Prantik for assessment year 2009-10, while as per computation of total income for assessment year 2009-10 it was revealed that assessee had included sum of Rs. 3,18,525 as royalty received from M/s. Prantik in his total income. Hence, balance amount of royalty debited to trading accounts of M/s. Prantik for year ended March 31, 2009, of Rs. 7,58,718 (Rs. 10,77,243 Rs. 3,18,525) was required to be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) as tax was not deducted at sources under section 194J; (iv) perusal of ledger accounts of motor car expenses for period 2008-2009 revealed that sum of Rs. 26,900 was paid in cash, which is inadmissible expenditure." Department's case is that by their letter dated November 19, 2013, above reasons were attempted to be served upon petitioner. It was refused by them. This in turn is disputed by petitioner. Now, Mr. Dutta, learned by them. This in turn is disputed by petitioner. Now, Mr. Dutta, learned advocate for petitioner, argues that on basis of reasons disclosed by Department in their affidavit-in-opposition, no case for reopening of assessment under section 147 is made out. Therefore, two alternative cases are run by petitioner. First, proceedings were invalid on ground that no reasons were supplied. Secondly, even it was assumed that reasons were advanced by Department there was no cause of reopening assessment under section 147/148. To deal with submission of Mr. Dutta, learned advocate for petitioner, facts in background need to be noticed. For assessment year 2009-10, petitioner filed his return of income on September 29, 2009, under section 139 of said Act showing total income of Rs. 2,71,01,034. On February 19, 2011, Department issued letter to petitioner stating that return had been selected for scrutiny. On June 7, 2011, Department issued notice under section 142(1) of Act to petitioner calling for certain information in prescribed format. Such information was furnished by petitioner on June 17, 2011. On August 24, 2011, further queries were raised by Department. Finally, on December 28, 2011, Department completed assessment under section 143(3) of Act and determined total income of petitioner at Rs. 3,14,06,070 and computed tax liability at Rs. 16,58,280. Mr. Dutta relied on ITO v. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur reported in [1974] 97 ITR 239 (SC). It was decision of hon'ble Supreme Court of India pronounced by Mr. Justice A. C. Gupta. In that case, status of four mohammedan ladies and their children were involved. Under three deeds of trust of 1950, relationship of ladies and their children with assessee were disclosed. There were further two trusts of 1957 which were not disclosed before Department. However, deeds of 1950 conformed in all material particulars to those of 1957. His Lordship observed as follows (page 244): "Clause (a) of section 147 of Income-tax Act, 1961, under which assessments were sought to be reopened, so far as it is relevant for present purpose, provides that if Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that, by reason of omission or failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for any year, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that year, he may assess or reassess such income for assessment year concerned. High Court held that reasons assigned for reopening assessments did not fall within scope of omission or failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, that all material facts were before Department when it made assessments in question and trusts created in 1957 did not'throw different light on matters already disclosed'... High Court was right in holding that Income-tax Officer had no valid reason to believe that respondent had omitted or failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts and consequently had no jurisdiction to reopen assessments for four years in question. Having second thoughts on same material does not warrant initiation of proceeding under section 147 of Income-tax Act, 1961." Mr. Dutta contended and, in my opinion rightly, that during section 143(3) assessment, all information, documents and other records relating to assessee for relevant assessment year were before Assessing Officer. reasons which are advanced show discovery of new facts from existing records. So Assessing Officer wants to change his opinion regarding assessment and to reopen it. In my opinion "escapement of income" should be given strict construction. Not only should it not be used to justify change of view it should not be used to reopen assessment on facts, information, documents which were before Assessing Officer or could have been easily found by him while making assessment. Otherwise, there would be no finality of assessment. It will go on and on and might become tool in hands of Department to cause harassment to assessee. In this case, in 143(3) proceedings all data regarding petitioner for subject assessment year were before Assessing Officer. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was "escapement of income" or that reasons for believing that there was "escapement of income" were valid for following reasons. In case of Amrit Feeds Ltd. v. Asst. CIT reported in [2012] 344 ITR 187 (Cal) common question was involved in all assessment years. In one of years, there was scrutiny assessment under section 143(3). I had held that issue regarding deduction under section 80-IB of Act could not be said to have escaped assessment. question in case was whether writ petitioner-assessee was engaged in production of cattle and poultry feed. According to Revenue, production of cattle and poultry could not be classified as manufacture to enable writ petitioner to obtain benefit of section 80-IB(5) of Act. My ruling was that on evidence before Assessing Officer he had held business of assessee to be manufacture cattle and poultry feed. During subsequent year he could not reopen assessment on same evidence. I had followed judgment of Mr. Justice Chattopadhyay in India Steamship Co. Ltd. v. Joint CIT reported in [2005] 275 ITR 155 (Cal). Be that as it may according to Department by their letter dated November 19, 2013, they proposed to serve reasons upon petitioner. It was allegedly sent by Departmental process server on November 22, 2013. Department's version is that assessee refused to accept letter. reasons were also sent by speed post. petitioner refused to accept service and envelope was returned to Department on December 21, 2013. According to petitioner, reasons were not received by him and that Department is wrongfully trying to assess his income under section 147. Let us assume that reasons were received by assessee objected to by him and those objections rejected by Department. Department, cannot reassesses case of writ petitioner as initiation of section 147 proceedings was without jurisdiction, in view of reasons given above. This writ application is allowed by passing orders in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of petition. Certified photocopy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. *** Debashis Moulik v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax