( 1 ) IN this group of three petitions, at the stage of show cause notice, the petitioners-assessees, have invoked extraordinary, plenery, equitable and discretionary jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a common question has surfaced for our consideration and adjudication i. e. whether in exercise of powers by the respondent authority, for reassessment and resultant notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the petitioners, at this stage, prima facie, could be said to be based on "change of opinion" or on new opinion on finding out mistake upon the existing material or could it be said that there is total lack of jurisdiction ?

( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner in each petition is that the impugned notice is without jurisdiction, as re-assessment cannot be made on the basis of "change of opinion" since all the relevant facts and entire material had been considered by the Assessing Officer, at the relevant time. Whereas, revenue has contended that assessee has claimed depreciation as deduction on non-exisatant machinery and bogus claim was found and depreciation, thereon, claimed was not, consciously, considered. Therefore, there is no question of bar of the jurisdiction.

( 3 ) WE have heard, extensively, the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties and materials emerging from record in light of the relevant proposition of law.

( 4 ) IT is true that even after the amendment in the provisions of Sec. 147 of the I. T. Act, 1961, a mere change of opinion, ipso-facto, would not confer or empower the Assessing Officer to embarke upon reassessment exercise. Notwithstanding that, power to make assessment or reassessment within four years of the end of the relevant assessment year, would be attracted even in the cases where there has been complete disclosure of all relevant facts upon which the assessment might have been based at the first instance, but for or in case of a mistake, as per amended provisions of sec. 147 of I. T. Act.

( 5 ) THE assessment of the return for the relevant years has been done under sec. 143 (3) of the I. T. Act. Record of these petitions indicates the order dated 24. 11. 1999, placed along with the affidavit-in-reply. It is the order showing reasons for issuance of notice under sec. 148 of I. T. A. which reads as under :-"as per the information received from DDI (Inv.) Unit-II, Khanpur under No. F. No. G-18/dd-II/knp/2 (35)/98-99 dated 19. 6. 1999, it is seen that assessee during the F. Y. 1995-96 corresponding to A. Y. 1996-97 purchased and leased the machinery ( Sheltting Line Tube Mill ) amounting to Rs. 1,47,81,250/ to Rajendra Group of Companies and claimed depreciation as deduction against its income in respect of machinery that either did not exist or the real worth of these machinery was only 10% to 20% of the value recorded in the books. In this way the assessee has claimed bogus depreciation on nonexistent machinery. Since the above amount of income appears to be escaped from taxable income for A. Y. 1996-97. It is mandatory to issue notice u/s 148 of the I. T. Act to cover the above income and tax the same accordingly, a notice u/s 148 is, therefore, issued to the assessee for this purpose. "

( 6 ) IT could very well be seen from the aforesaid reasons that depreciation claimed on the machinery which was non-existent, as per the information received by the department, whereas, in scrutiny assessment, depreciation under sec. 32 r/w sec. 43 (6) of the I. T. Act had been claimed and accepted. Thus, it was noticed that there was a bogus claim and mistake was discovered.

( 7 ) EXPRESSION "reason to believe" employed in sec. 147 of the I. T. Act would mean some cause or justification if the competent authority has a cause or ground or some justification that some income has escaped assessment or that there was a mistake in making assessment. In the peculiar facts and special circumstances emerging from the record, we are extremely u