( 1 ) RULE. Service of rule is waived by learned counsel for the respondent.

( 2 ) THE petitioner challenges notice issued by the respondent u/s 148 on 18. 2. 1997 in respect of A. Y. 1993-94. The reasons which are required to be recorded before issuing notice when demanded by the assessee were disclosed to the assessee by letter dated 16. 4. 97, Annexure F, which reads as under:-"as per provision of section 147 of the I. T. Act, explanation 2 (c) (iv), deduction u/s 80hhc claimed at Rs. 7,07,64,720. 00 has been wrongly claimed as you have not included an amount of 142. 62 crores of export turnover in respect of marine division as total turnover of business, while claiming deduction u/s 80hhc of the I. T. Act which is not as per provision of the I. T. Act. "the petitioner challenges the issuance of notice, inter alia, on the grounds that the reasons show that impugned notices proceeds on mere change of opinion on reappreciation of evidence which is already on record. In respect of Marine Division the assessee has not claimed export benefit u/s 80hhc of the Act, the erroneous calculation of which is considered to be ground for reopening the completed assessment. The recourse to sec. 148 is not permissible to reopen concluded assessment merely because the authority takes a different view on the same facts which were already on record, and considered. Another contention which the petitioner raised is that the assessment has been reopened on the basis of remarks of Accountant General (Audit Wing ). The remark of Accountant General cannot be regarded as information enabling the respondent to reopen the assessment in relation to the audit objection. It was further alleged that on receipt of a query from the Audit Wing of the Comptroller of Auditor General, the respondent called upon the petitioner to explain the stand of the petitioner from time to time. The matter rested there for some time and therefore the petitioner believed that audit objection has now been satisfied. It was further alleged that to the best of information of the petitioner at the time when the respondent issued impugned notice, he did not have any reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and was only acting at the instance of the Audit Wing of Comptroller and Auditor General which is another department altogether. As a matter of fact the belief of the assessing officer was that the income has not escaped assessment at all and to the petitioners information on or around 15. 3. 1997 the respondent himself addressed a communication to the office of the Accountant General not accepting the correctness of the view of Audit Wing on the interpretation of Sec. 80hhc. In other words, when the impugned notices were issued, after considering the same, the respondent did not hold any belief that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment for any reason.

( 3 ) IN the first instance, reply to the petition in the form of affidavit of one Mr. M. K. Dubey, who is not the assessing officer who has issued impugned notices and the existence of whose belief is under challenge, was filed and nothing except urging that reopening can take place in pursuance of remarks by he Accountant General Audit Wing in view of change in sec. 147 was stated. When the petitoiner was permitted to amend the petition in furtherance of his original assertion in the petition that before issuance of notice the assessee was called upon to explain the query and assessee was given to believe that audit objections have been satisfied, and that the assessing officer even after issuance of notice believed that there was no error in the original assessment order to believe, that income has escaped assessment, it raised a question mark about the very existence of belief in the mind of the respondent, about escapement of income from tax.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER another affidavit of Mr. M. H. Pandav of the concerned, officer who has recorded reasons for issuing notice u/s 148 was filed. The