JUDGMENT :

K.R. SHRIRAM, J.

1. Petitioner is impugning a notice dated 28th March 2019 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act), by which respondents state that they have reasons to believe that petitioner's income chargeable to tax for A.Y. 2012-2013 has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. Petitioner is also impugning an order dated 13th November 2019 rejecting petitioner's objections to the reopening of assessment for A.Y. 2012-2013.

2. Having heard Mr. Thakkar and Mr. Walve and having considered the petition, reply etc. we are in agreement with petitioner that the notice dated 28th March 2019 alongwith order dated 13th November 2019 impugned in the petition have to be quashed and set aside.

3. Admittedly, this is a case where the notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year and assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act has also been completed. Hence, proviso to Section 147 of the Act shall apply. Respondents have to show that there was failure on the part of petitioner to truly and fully disclose material facts relevant for the assessment. We have considered the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment and we have no doubt in concluding that respondents have failed in discharging its onus to show that petitioner has failed to disclose truly and fully all material facts. From the reasons itself as well as the documents annexed to the petition, it is quiet clear that there has been full disclosure by petitioner. Jurisdictional Assessment Officer (JAO) has raised 4 heads, under which he feels that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The same for ease of reference are reproduced from the reasons which reads as under:

“Brief details of the information collected/received by the AO:

(1) It is found that the assessee has debited an amount of Rs. 29,30,000/- towards security deposit against the interest income under the head of other income in the profit and loss account. The security deposit being capital in nature is not an allowable expenditure u/s. 37 of the Act.

(2) Further, the assessee has debited an amount of Rs. 1,15,67,90,000/- under the head Exceptional items to the profit and loss account which included an amount of Rs. 22,08,18,000/- towards expenses on reationalisation initiative mainly relating to a manufacturing site. Out of this, an amount of Rs. 15,42,60,000/- was added back being the capital expenditure. As the whole amount of Rs. 22,08,18,000/- being capital expenditure incurred towards rationalisation initiative mainly relating to a manufacturing site, balance of Rs. 6,65,58,000/- was required to be added back to the taxable income.

(3) Again, it is noticed that the assessee has reduced an amount of Rs. 2,15,19,017/- towards Sales tax paid but not debited to P&L account in the computation of income. In the clause 21(i) of 3CD report (Schedule J) (notes 4a), the auditor has certified that the company has made payments in the nature of deposits aggregating to Rs. 2,15,19,017/- under the applicable sales tax laws of various states. Since these payment are in the nature of deposits, the same should not be reduced in the computation of income.

(4) Further, it is noticed from the balance sheet that Export incentive receivable was Rs. 97,04,000/- as on 31.03.2011 and Rs. 32,56,000/- as on 31.12.2012. Thus, the assessee has claimed a deduction of Rs. 64,48,000/- on account of difference of receivable which is not allowable deduction and should have been disallowed.”

4. As regards item (2), JAO states that amount of Rs. 15,42,60,000/- only was added back as capital expenditure, whereas the entire amount of Rs. 22,08,18,000/- required to be added to the taxable income. This exposes clear change of opinion on the part of JAO.

Coming to item (4), the JAO states the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 64,48,000/- on account of difference of receivable which is not allowable deduction and