JUDGMENT Having heard both sides and finding that very short point is involved, we dispose of this writ petition finally by this order. Rule. respondents waive service. By this writ petition under article 226 of Constitution of India, petitioner seeks following relief: "(a) to issue writ, order or direction to respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 quashing reopening proceedings initiated under section 147 of Act for assessment year 2010-11. (b) to declare notice issued under section 148(2) as invalid and illegal and not in conformity with law." facts and circumstances in which these reliefs are sought are that petitioner is partnership firm registered under Indian Partnership Act, 1932. It is registered as commission agent of onion potato market under Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Vashi, Navi Mumbai. petitioner firm is regularly assessed to income-tax. petitioner filed return of income for assessment year 2010-11 on October 14, 2010. Along with this return, they have filed audit report, audited balance-sheet and profit and loss account for year ended March 31, 2010. said return was processed and intimation dated February 20, 2012, under section 143(1) of Income-tax Act was issued wherein clarification was sought but assessment order was not passed. It is claim of petitioner-assessee that profit claimed in return of income amounting to Rs. 13,81,880 was accepted. In meanwhile, survey action under section 133A of Incometax Act, 1961, was carried out on January 7, 2011, at business premises of petitioner at Navi Mumbai. This was pertaining to assessment year 2011-12. survey party did not find any discrepancy in books of account. survey report (annexure C) dated April 2, 2002, was forwarded by Deputy Director of Income-tax (Investigations) Unit IV, Mumbai, to first respondent to this writ petition. However, petitioner states that this report did not contain any reference of any transactions for assessment year 2010-11. On March 6, 2014, first respondent issued notice purporting to be under section 148 of Income-tax Act for assessment year 2010-11. copy of this notice is to be found at page 81 of paper book wherein it is stated that Assessing Officer is satisfied that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for assessment year 2010-11. In response to this notice, assessee sought reasons for reopening of assessment by application dated May 23, 2014. copy of which is marked at page 82 of paper book. However, on June 30, 2014, Income-tax Officer sought certain information and production of documents from assessee. assessee replied to same and pointed out that copy of "reasons recorded" have not been supplied and reiterated said demand. Thereupon, copy of "reasons recorded" were supplied by communication dated July 15, 2014. It is claimed that these reasons are recorded at time of issuance of notice under section 148. same read as under: "A survey action under section 133A of Income-tax, Act, 1961, was carried out by DDIT (Inv.), Unit VII(2), Mumbai, on January 7, 2011, at business premises of assessee at E97/ C76, APMC Market Yard, Vashi, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai, and on basis of survey report forwarded to this office, case is reopened under section 147 of Income-tax, 1961, for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. Notice under section 148 of Income-tax Act, 1961, is hereby issued to assessee." petitioners counsel would submit that there are no reasons much less leading to belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. survey report is made basis for reopening assessment and for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. survey is stated to be of January 7, 2011. In circumstances, there is no satisfaction recorded that any January 7, 2011. In circumstances, there is no satisfaction recorded that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and as pointed out in survey report or from such other relevant material. It is, therefore, submitted that notice is ex facie bad in law and proceedings in pursuance thereof are totally without jurisdiction. Mrs. Bharucha, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents, submits that in affidavit-in-reply, it is pointed out as to how this notice was justified. reason for issuing it may be survey and report thereof but there is independent satisfaction that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In such circumstances, she submits that petitioner-assessee should appear before Income-tax Officer and he has all opportunity in law to raise contentions challenging reassessment and on merits. At this stage, this court should not interfere in writ jurisdiction and merely because another view is possible. She submits that writ petition be dismissed. With assistance of learned counsel appearing for both sides, we have perused petition, paper book and relevant annexures. pre- condition for issuing notice under section 148 is satisfaction and in terms of section 147 that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and in relevant assessment year. survey report dated April 2, 2012, indicates that on basis of authorisation dated January 7, 2011, which records that there is group of assessees which is engaged in wholesale trading of potato on commission basis. survey was conducted based on allegations that these parties are resorting to hoarding of potatoes and making huge profits by fluctuating day-to-day price of potatoes in market. During course of survey, assessee's manual books of account, cash balance, stock, etc., were physically verified and inventory was prepared. backup of books of account maintained on computer has been taken and impounded for further verification. details of group's bank accounts have been obtained and kept on record. further contents of this report would reveal that there were some discrepancies and which are very minor in nature. Therefore, cash physically found was short of Rs. 5,020 for which it is explained that same pertains to day-to-day and miscellaneous expenses incurred on day of survey. Secondly, physical stock of 672 bags of potato was found. explanation for same is recorded. Thus, neither survey report nor any other material indicates that any income chargeable to tax for relevant assessment year has escaped assessment. Assessing Officer, therefore, had nothing before him which would enable him to record his belief that any such escapement has taken place. In circumstances, reasons recorded and which pertain to all assessment years prior and subsequent to survey can hardly satisfy requirement in law. This is not how power under section 147 should be exercised. That is to be exercised and in exceptional cases. It should not be exercised as manner of routine and merely because some survey of this nature had taken place. At any point of time and when there was shortage of potato in market, that such powers of survey were invoked. If nothing has been found therein which would indicate escapement of income and chargeable to tax then basis for reopening ought not be such survey actions and report. Something more was required in law for Assessing Officer to exercise his powers. As result of above discussion, we find that it is not possible to agree with Mrs. Bharucha that writ jurisdiction of this court should not be exercised to interfere with notice and at threshold. Once we find that foundation or basis for initiation of reassessment proceedings is such communication and which does not contain requisite satisfaction or reasons for belief then we are required to step in and at threshold itself. We cannot allow Assessing Officer to continue proceedings and which may cause undue harassment and embarrassment to assessee like petitioner. When there is absolutely no material to institute proceedings or issue notice proposing reassessment of income then it is duty of court to interfere and quash proceedings at threshold. In these circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). There would be no orders as to costs. *** Hemant Traders v. Income-tax Officer