JUDGMENT I. P. Mukerji J.-This writ asks for orders for quashing notice under section 148 of Income- tax Act, 1961, dated February 5, 2013, and notices dated December 12, 2013, issued in pursuance thereof under sections 142(1) and 143(2) of said Act. assessment of writ petitioner's case for assessment year 2006- 07 was sought to be reopened. reasons accompanied letter dated November 25, 2013, of Department. reasons advanced were as follows: "Information has been received from Director of Income-tax (I & CI), Chennai, that assessee-company has received compensation and enhanced compensation from Government of Tamil Nadu for acquisition of land for widening of existing MTH Road, measuring 96.89 sqm. (as per sale deed page 5) during financial year 2005-06 which is liable to capital gain for assessment year 200607. assessee has computed indexed cost of acquisition (as per second proviso to section 48) on April 1, 1981, at Rs. 2,61,86,482.70. According to computation of ITO-II, (I & CI), Chennai-34, cost of acquisition as per cost index on April 1, 1981, is Rs. 1,30,49,560. assessee-company has claimed excess cost of acquisition by Rs. 1,31,36,923 and income from capital gain has been underassessed. Therefore, I have reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment." reasons are dated February 5, 2013. Under section 151 of Income-tax Act, 1961, if assessment is sought to be reopened after four years it can be done on satisfaction of Chief Commissioner or Commissioner which has to be recorded. satisfaction has to be to effect that it is fit case for issuance of such notice. It appears from annexure D of affidavit-in-opposition that by letter dated January 30, 2013, of Department it was stated that Commissioner had accorded necessary approval for reopening of assessment of writ petitioner for assessment year 2006-07. Mr. R. N. Bajoria, learned senior advocate, pointed out that reasons had been prepared after issue of purported sanction by Commissioner. It appears from reasons enclosed with said letter dated November 25, 2013, that they were extracted from file. relevant page of file was photocopied and annexed to notice. Learned counsel argued that there could be no formation of opinion by Commissioner of Income-tax to issue such notice under section 148 of said Act on January 30, 2013, in absence of cogent reasons, which were recorded later on February 5, 2013. More curiously notice under section 148 of Income-tax Act was also dated February 5, 2013, is annexure P-2 at page 26 of petition. specific declaration in notice that it was being issued after obtaining necessary satisfaction of Commissioner and Chief Commissioner of Income-tax was scored out. Mr. Bajoria submitted that there was every reason to believe that no permission of Commissioner of Income- tax or Chief Commissioner was obtained before issuing notice. I agree with submissions of learned counsel that in absence of reasons on January 30, 2013, Commissioner could not have recorded satisfaction under section 151 of said Act. next point of challenge were reasons itself. Department cannot act beyond reasons furnished. only basis for reopening assessment was error in computation of "indexed cost of acquisition on April 1, 1981". According to assessee, it was Rs. 2,61,86,482.70, according to computation of ITO-II, (I & CI), Chennai-34 it was Rs. 1,30,49,560. If this variation was true, assessee was liable to pay higher capital gains tax. Now, Mr. Bajoria challenges these reasons, very rightly, on ground that they are based on opinion of officer posted in Chennai. It is stated in body of reasons that it is based on such opinion. Therefore, assessment of case of assessee was sought to be reopened not on basis of non- disclosure of income or concealment of income or underassessment of income but on change of opinion. Learned counsel of petitioner was right when he argued on basis of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R. B. Wadkar, Asst. CIT (No. 1) reported in [2004] 268 ITR 332 (Bom) and Aroni Commercials Ltd. v. Deputy CIT reported in [2014] 362 ITR 403 (Bom) both Division Bench judgments of Bombay High Court that formal reasons given in support of reopening case cannot be added to or subtracted from or improved in affidavit-in-opposition. In this case also reasons dated February 5, 2013, have been sought to be improved in affidavit-in-opposition which is not permissible on basis of above decisions. Furthermore, what is more important is that assessment was sought to be reopened on mere change of opinion, change of opinion being with regard to estimation of indexed cost of acquisition on April 1, 1981. It has been declared in formal reasons that justification for reassessment was to be found view of Income-tax Officer Chennai. On face of records Department was acting on change of opinion. It is settled law that assessment cannot be reopened on change of opinion. For all those reasons this writ application succeeds. I allow same by passing orders in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of writ petition. Certified photocopy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. *** Asiatic Oxygen Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax