JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by G. S. Kulkarni J.-The petitioner has sought to question legality of notice dated March 15, 2007, issued by Assessing Officer under section 148 of Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") seeking to reopen assessment for assessment year 2000-01. There is also challenge to order of Assessing Officer disposing of objections raised by petitioner to reopening of assessment. As reopening pertains to assessment year 2000-01 impugned notice is admittedly issued beyond period of four years from end of relevant assessment year. For assessment year 2000-01, petitioner filed return of income on November 30, 2000, declaring total income of Rs. 2,15,82,750. order of assessment was made on January 27, 2003, under section 143(3) of Act by which total income was determined at Rs. 2,56,02,060 after making certain disallowances. One of partial disallowances was deduction under section 33AC of Act which was claimed by petitioner on ground that petitioner is engaged in business of operation of ships. On this count petitioner had, inter alia, claimed deduction of Rs. 2,15,94,598 however, Assessing Officer allowed same to extent of Rs. 1,82,28,205 only. Assessing Officer issued to petitioner notice dated March 15, 2007, under section 148 of Act seeking to reopen assessment for assessment year 2000-01 on ground that income had escaped assessment within meaning of section 147 of Act. notice recorded that it was issued after obtaining necessary satisfaction of Commissioner of Income-tax. petitioner by its letter dated April 17, 2007, informed Assessing Officer that return dated November 30, 2000, filed by petitioner for assessment year 2000-01 be treated to be return filed in response to notice issued under section 148 of Act. petitioner also demanded reasons for reopening of assessment. Assessing Officer, accordingly, furnished to petitioner reasons for reopening of assessment which read thus: "The assessment in this case was completed on January 27, 2003, determining total income at Rs. 2,56,02,060 while computing total income, claim of assessee under section 33AC of Rs.182,28,705 was allowed accepting nature of business as'operation of ships' as claimed in return of income in column 11. Subsequently, intimation has been received from Commissioner of Income-tax (C)-IV, vide letter dated February 13, 2007, informing nature of actual business activities of assessee as submitted by assessee before Commissioner of Income-tax (A)(C)-IV while hearing appeal against order for block period. various business activities carried out by assessee and submitted before Commissioner of Income-tax (A)(C)- IV are as under: appellant is engaged in providing lighterage services to ships of national and international lines calling on Ports like Bedi, Sikka, Navlakhi, Okha, Magdalla, Dahanu, Dharamtar, etc. These services include handling of various cargo such as coal, cement, clinker, salt extraction, etc., from ships to shore/shore to ships and clients destination to mother vessel/mother vessel to client destination. company also owns barges, onshore, equipment and dumpers for its business. appellant either taps its own sources or appoints or looks for agents who can get business for it. agents appointed by appellant assist appellant to achieve large revenue by increasing its turnover. From elaborate details furnished by assessee before Commissioner of Income-tax (A)(C)-IV, it is seen that assessee's main business is not operation of ships as claimed in return of income but only ancillary services. deductions under section 33AC is allowed to assessee whose main business is operation of ships. deduction under section 33AC has been wrongly allowed to assessee on basis of wrong facts submitted along with return of income. I have, therefore, reason to believe that income chargeable to tax for assessment years 2000-01 has escaped assessment to extent of Rs. 182,28,705 by reason of failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment in return of income for assessment year 2000-01." petitioner by its letter dated October 16, 2007, recorded their objections to notice issued by Assessing Officer under section 148 of Act. petitioner raised following objections: (i) return of income for assessment year 2000-01 was filed along with all supporting documents including those required for claiming under section 33AC of Act. (ii) On scrutiny and examination of material documentary evidence placed before Assessing Officer in assessment proceedings, assessment was completed by order dated January 27, 2013, passed under section 143(3) of Act wherein deduction under section 33AC was allowed at Rs. 1,82,28,705 against petitioner's claim of Rs. 2,15,94,598. (iii) In reopening assessment conditions prescribed under section 147 conferring jurisdiction for reopening assessment are not satisfied before issuing of notice under section 148 of Act as there was no failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. (iv) Mere change of opinion without any fresh tangible material could not be ground to reopen assessment. (v) reopening could not have been at suggestion of another authority. (vi) reasons as furnished by Assessing Officer had no rational relationship with belief of Assessing Officer. (vii) As regards partial disallowance under section 33AC in assessment order dated January 27, 2003, petitioner had filed first appeal before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). disallowance being maintained in first appeal petitioner had approached Tribunal. Tribunal by order dated July 3, 2007, had restored/ remanded issue in regard to admissibility of said deductions to be decided afresh by Assessing Officer. Assessing Officer, however, by order dated October 23, 2007, rejected petitioner's objections to reopening of assessment. order records that objections are being rejected in view of letter received from Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). relevant extract of order reads thus: "From elaborate details furnished by assessee before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (C)-IV, it is seen that assessee's main business is not operation of ships as claimed in return of income but only ancillary services. I, therefore, reject your submission for allowing of deduction under section 33AC of Income-tax Act, 1961, and that reopening is valid." Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of petitioner, has made following submissions in support of petitioner's case: (i) There was complete disclosure on part of assessee all material facts truly and fully during course of assessment. (ii) fact that petitioner is engaged in business of operation of ships was appropriately disclosed and on this basis petitioner was claiming deduction under section 33AC of Act and, hence, there was full and complete disclosure of activity of petitioner. (iii) petitioner being engaged in shipping operation was accepted in totality by Revenue. (iv) It can be seen from reasons as furnished by Assessing Officer it cannot be said that Assessing Officer had any reason to believe that income had escaped assessment nor could it be said that petitioner had failed to disclose fully and truly any material which would warrant reopening of assessment as per provisions of section 147 of Act. (v) impugned notice was issued on mere change of opinion which cannot be ground to reopen assessment. (vi) impugned notice was issued without being any opinion formed by Assessing Officer as Assessing Officer was acting on recommendation of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Learned counsel for petitioner, in support of his submissions, has drawn our attention to following documents as were available before Assessing Officer in assessment proceedings placed on record: (i) 47th annual report of petitioner for year 1999-2000 depicting following: (ii) profit and loss account for year ended March 31, 2000, which indicated freight income of Rs.114,53,79,047 for said year. (iii) Expenditure on vessels of Rs. 89,75,43,318 was shown in profit and loss account. (iv) Transfer of amount of Rs. 2,81,87,044 to shipping reserves under section 33AC as shown in schedule forming part of balancesheet as on March 31, 2000. (v) Entry in regard to vessels and barges showed value of vessels post-depreciation for financial year 1999-2000. (vi) Statement of particulars furnished under section 44AB of Act in Form No. 3CD petitioner had shown nature of business as business of operations of ships. (vii) Statement of depreciation for year ending March 31, 2000, value of specific vessels and barges also was indicated. (viii) Computation of deduction allowable under section 33AC computation of deductions under section 33AC showing 50 per cent. amount of Rs. 2,15,94,598 as claimed by petitioner. (ix) Statement of computation of total income claim of petitioner for deduction under section 33AC arrived at amount of Rs. 2,15,94,598 being incorporated." Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn our attention to following documents: (I) Notice dated January 4, 2002, issued by Assessing Officer under section 142(1) of Act which, inter alia, sought several details from petitioner. One of details as sought from petitioner reads as under: "Give brief note on nature of business carried on by you and subsidiary company, i.e., USL Shinrai Automobiles Ltd. for year under consideration." (II) Reply of petitioner to notice dated January 4, 2002, by its letter dated February 12, 2002, inter alia, recording nature of business as under: "1. Brief note regarding nature of business: (a) company owns barges, onshore equipment and dumpers. company provides lighterage services to ships of national and international lines calling on ports like Bedi, Sikka, Navlakhi, Okha, Magdalla, Dahanu, Dahej, etc. These services includes handling of various cargo such as coal, cement, clinker, salt extraction, etc., from ships to shore/shore to ships and/or from clients' destination to mother vessels, mother vessels to client's destination." (III) Letter of petitioner dated January 17, 2003, being petitioner's reply to notice under section 143(2) of Act in which petitioner recorded that petitioner had fleet of barges and tugs operating at minor ports on Western port of India such as Bedi, Sikka, Navlakhi, Okha, Magdalla and Dahanu. (IV) Assessment order dated January 27, 2003, passed under section 143(3) of Act in which Assessing Officer has recorded that petitioner is engaged in business of owning and operating ships and barges. Assessment order also takes into consideration claim of petitioner for deductions under section 33AC which was partially disallowed. claim of petitioner for deduction under section 33AC of Act was for amount of Rs. 2.15 crores. Assessing Officer, however, allowed same to extent of Rs. 1.82 crores. Assessing Officer in partially disallowing claim furnished detail reasons. (V) Order dated March 21, 2003, passed by Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) sustaining disallowance of deduction under section 33AC of Act and order of Tribunal passed on appeal filed by petitioner against said order by which issue in regard to partial deduction under section 33AC was restored to file of Assessing Officer. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that above documents clearly reveal that petitioners had fully and truly disclosed all material facts which indicated that petitioners were engaged in business of operation of ships at all relevant times and were, accordingly, availing of deduction under section 33AC of Act. He submits that this disclosure of true nature of business was accepted by Revenue. It is submitted that despite this clear position, Assessing Officer reopened assessment only on basis of letter dated February 13, 2007, of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-II, Mumbai. To appreciate submissions as made on behalf of petitioner it would be necessary to note contents of said letter which reads thus: "No. CIT(A)-C-IV/Appeal/2006-07 Office of Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) Central-IV Room No. 631, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Dated 13-2-2007 Commissioner of Income-tax Central-II, Mumbai Sir, Sub: Appeal against order under section 158BC in case of M/s. United Shippers Ltd-Reg. Ref: No. CIT (A)/C-IV/IT-248/2004-05 dated 24-3-2005 abovementioned appeal is pending for adjudication in this office. As per ground No. 10 of above appeal, appellant has contested Assessing Officer's action of not granting deduction under section 33AC of Income-tax Act. As per appellant's written submissions dated November 22, 2006, given to me in appeal proceedings, nature of business carried out by appellant is stated as under: 'The appellant is engaged in providing lighterage services to ships of national and international lines calling on ports like Bedim, Sikka, Navlakhi, Okha, Magdalla, Dahanu, Dharamtar, etc. These services include handling of various cargo such as coal, cement, clinker, salt, extraction, etc., from ships to shore/shore to ships and client's destination to mother vessel/mother vessel to client destination. company also owns barges, onshore equipment and dumpers for its business. appellant either taps its own sources or appoints or looks for agents who can get business for it. agents appointed by appellant assist appellant to achieve large revenue by increasing its turnover...' plain reading of section 33AC makes it abundantly clear that deduction under section 33AC is available to assessee which is Government company or public company formed and registered in India with main object of carrying on business of operation of ship... As can be seen from appellant's submissions, appellant is not engaged in business of operating ships but only providing ancillary services. It is kindly requested that Assessing Officer (ACIT, CC-21) and Addl. CIT (Central Range-5), Mumbai) should be directed to not only consider claim of appellant in light of abovementioned proposition but also to consider possibility of reopening of concluded assessments in appellant's case. This may be treated as MOST URGENT. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, (Sd.)....... (Anuradha Bhatia) Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) Central-IV Mumbai." (underlining is ours) Referring to above letter of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) it is urged on behalf of petitioner that Assessing Officer in issuing it is urged on behalf of petitioner that Assessing Officer in issuing notice under section 148 of Act was clearly acting at dictates and/or recommendation of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). It is urged that even assuming that Assessing Officer was to consider aforesaid opinion of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) Assessing Officer was required to form independent opinion to come to conclusion that income has escaped assessment on account of failure on part of petitioner to fully and truly disclosure of all material facts. It is then urged that in any case reason given by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in letter dated February 13, 2007, in regard to nature of business carried out by petitioner was nothing but what petitioner itself had disclosed to Revenue at all material times including in its return and in information as sought by Assessing Officer during course of assessment proceedings. It is, therefore, submitted that there was no material which can be said to be not fully and truly disclosed by petitioner to Revenue during course of assessment proceedings. It is, thus, urged that action on part of Revenue in reopening assessment is wholly without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed and set aside. On behalf of Revenue, it is submitted that there was nothing inappropriate or illegal on part of Assessing Officer to reopen assessment for assessment year in question. It is submitted that reopening was initiated on basis of information received from Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for reasons as set out in letter dated February 13, 2007, of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) addressed to Commissioner of Income-tax making observations on nature of business of petitioner which justified reopening of assessment as could be very well inferred that income had escaped assessment. We have given our anxious consideration to material as placed on record and submissions as made on behalf of learned counsel for parties. It is obligation on assessee to disclose fully and truly all material particulars necessary for assessment in support of return of income. In case of petitioner Assessing Officer had passed order dated January 27, 2003, under section 143(3) of Act by which total income was determined at Rs. 2,56,02,060 after making certain disallowances. One of partial disallowances was deduction under section 33AC of Act which was claimed by petitioner on ground that petitioner is engaged in business of operation of ships. On this count petitioner had, inter alia, claimed deduction of Rs. 2,15,94,598 however Assessing Officer allowed same to extent of Rs. 1,82,28,205. It is admitted position that notice in question issued under section 148 of Act is issued by Assessing Officer after expiry of period of four years from end of relevant assessment year. When assessment is sought to be reopened after expiry of four years from end of relevant assessment year, proviso to section 147 of Act stipulates requirement that there must failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment of income for that year. This is primary and jurisdictional requirement being mandate of proviso to provisions of section 147 of Act. perusal of reasons as recorded by Assessing Officer, to reopen assessment, even when they are read in its entirety do not indicate that petitioner has not disclosed fully and truly all material facts. We, therefore, see that ex facie on this ground alone impugned notice can be said to lacking in its foundation for any further enforcement. Indisputedly Assessing Officer had passed assessment order under section 143(3) of Act. In course of assessment proceedings Assessing officer by notice dated January 4, 2002, called upon petitioner to submit brief note on nature of its business. petitioner by its letter dated February 12, 2002, had categorically disclosed nature of its business activity as being engaged in "shipping operations". petitioner in various documents as sought by Assessing Officer in course of assessment proceedings had disclosed nature of its activity to be operation of ships. On basis of this material petitioner had made claim for deduction under section 33AC of Act justifying its claim being engaged in shipping operations. This claim was supported by material made available to Assessing Officer. Assessing Officer had thus applied his mind to key facts which form basis of reopening of assessment and recorded opinion that petitioner is engaged in shipping operations so as to make it eligible for deduction under section 33AC of Act. Thus, reopening of assessment is bad in law as there is no reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. This is so as entire exercise for reopening of assessment emanates from change of opinion. It is quite clear to us that reopening notice in question is issued by Assessing Officer on basis of letter dated February 13, 2007, of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (supra), wherein Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has extracted very information as furnished by petitioner in regard to nature of its business in shipping. What we find is that this disclosure is in fact identical to disclosure as made by petitioner in response in its letter dated February 12, 2012, to notice of Assessing Officer under section 142(1) of Act which raised various queries in course of assessment proceedings for assessment year in question. In our opinion, Assessing Officer's attempt to reopen petitioner's assessment on petitioner's own disclosure can in no manner be termed as appropriate exercise of his jurisdiction and authority under section 147 so to reopen assessment beyond period of four years as this can in no manner be said to be any failure on part of petitioner to disclose fully and truly all facts necessary for assessment. Thus, issue which goes to root of matter is jurisdictional requirement Assessing Officer was required to be satisfy before issuing notice in question under section 148 to reopen assessment after expiry of four years from end of relevant assessment year. jurisdictional requirement would be whether petitioner had failed to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for his assessment for relevant assessment year. This would form very foundation for Assessing Officer to exercise jurisdiction so as to come to definite conclusion that income has escaped assessment. reasons as furnished by Assessing Officer to reopen assessment do not indicate that there was failure on part of petitioner to fully and truly disclose any material fact in regard to nature of its business so as to claim deduction under section 33AC of Act. entire basis of reopening petitioner's assessment is opinion of Commissioner of reopening petitioner's assessment is opinion of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as contained in his letter dated February 13, 2007, which is nothing but petitioner's own disclosure in regard to nature of petitioner's business. This assertion of Assessing Officer thus in no manner can legally justify reopening of assessment after four years from end of relevant assessment year. Moreover, action to reopen assessment on mere change of opinion is wholly impermissible in law. We are, therefore, of clear opinion that Assessing Officer has acted without application of mind and wholly without jurisdiction in issuing impugned notice to reopen assessment of petitioner. We may usefully refer to decision of Division Bench of this court in case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R. B. Wadkar, Asst. CIT (No. 1) reported in [2004] 268 ITR 332 (Bom) in which case this court was dealing with issue pertaining to notice to reopen assessment after four years after completion of assessment under section 143(3) of Act. Division Bench has made following observations (page 338): "The reasons recorded must be based on evidence. Assessing Officer in event of challenge to reasons, must be able to justify same based on material available on record. He must disclose in reasons as to which fact or material was not disclosed by assessee fully and truly necessary for assessment of that assessment year, so as to establish vital link between reasons and evidence. That vital link is safeguard against arbitrary reopening of concluded assessment..." (emphasis supplied) In present case, reasons as furnished by Assessing Officer to reopen assessment does not indicate any material which petitioner has not fully and truly disclosed in assessment proceedings. In light of aforesaid deliberation, we may observe with certitude that Assessing Officer in issuing impugned notice under section 148 of Act has acted without jurisdiction and merely on change of opinion and in absence any material which could be said to be not disclosed fully and truly by petitioner to Assessing Officer so as to come to conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. petitioner has made full and true disclosure during course of assessment proceedings in regard to nature of its business. In absence of these jurisdictional requirements impugned notice is rendered wholly arbitrary and thus deserved to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly writ petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Rule is accordingly made absolute. No order as to costs. *** United Shippers Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax