Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

This order shall govern disposal of both the writ petitions as the facts and grounds involved are similar. However, for the sake of convenience, the documents filed in WPT No.69 of 2018 are being referred.

2. Challenge in these two writ petitions is to the approval accorded by the Principal, Commissioner of Income Tax, under Section 151 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") (Annexure P-2) for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act and the consequent notices (Annexure P-3) under the said provision. The petitioners would also challenge the reasons recorded under Section 148 (2) of the Act (Annexure P-5) to opine that income has escaped assessment for the Assessment Year 2011-12 and 2012-13, respectively by the respondent No.2 as without jurisdiction.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would argue that re-assessment notice is required to have prior sanction under Section 151 (1) by satisfying the condition prescribed in the said provision, however, proper reasons to believe for issuance of notice being absent in both the cases the sanction under Section 151 of the Act and the consequent notices are illegal.

4. Learned counsel would further argue that there is only reason to suspect that income has escaped without there being any foundational fact or tangible material withheld by the petitioner at the time of assessment. Mere suspect that the companies in question were paper companies by itself is insufficient to re-open the assessment unless the Assessment Officer had further information that these companies were non-existent after making further enquiries into the matter. Learned counsel would next submit that the petitioners having made true and full disclosure at the time of assessment, the reasons recorded and the consequent re-assessment notice is only change of opinion, which is not permissible in law.

5. To buttress his contention, learned counsel would place reliance upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v Income-tax Officer, (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) Delhi High Court in Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. v Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, WPC No.1357 of 2016 (decided on 25-9-2017) and that of the Supreme Court in Income-tax Officer v Madnani Engineering Works Ltd., (1979) 118 ITR 1 (SC).

6. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, per contra, would submit that the Principal, CIT has recorded cogent reasons as required under Section 151 (1) read with Section 148 (2) of the Act before granting sanction for re-opening of assessment. Learned counsel would further submit that there are tangible material as is referred in the order under Section 148 (2), therefore, it is not a case of change of opinion.

7. Further contention of the learned counsel for the Revenue is that re-assessment proceedings having already been done, the petitioner has remedy of filing an appeal, therefore, the present petitions are not maintainable. Learned counsel would next submit that whether or not the income has escaped re-assessment is to be decided by the Assessment Officer and the same cannot be questioned in a writ petition.

8. In support of her contention, learned counsel would refer to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Raymond Wollen Mills Ltd. v Income-Tax Officer and Ors., (1999) 236 ITR 34 SC : 1999 236 CTR SC 34. Reference is also made to the Division Bench decision of the Gujarat High Court in Lalita Ashwin Jain v Income Tax Officer, (2014) 363 ITR 343 : 2014 SCC Online Guj 2021 the Single Bench judgment rendered by this Court in Arun Kumar Agrawal v The Principal, Commissioner of Income Tax & Others, WPT No.163 of 2016 & Other connected matters (decided on 1-12-2016) and the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Sonia Gandhi v Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 52(1) and Ors., WPC No.8482 of 2018 and other connected matters (decided on 10-9-2018)

9. Bare perusal of the order passed under Section 148 (2) of the Act containi