Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J.

1. These petitions arise in common background. They have been heard together and would be disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, we may refer to the facts arising in SCA No. 17307 of 2015. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. For the asst. yr. 2011-12, the petitioner filed return of income on 17th Oct., 2011 declaring nil income. Such return was processed under s. 143(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) and thus accepted without any scrutiny. The AO later on issued impugned notice Dt. 2nd March, 2015 under s. 148 of the Act seeking to reopen the assessment of the petitioner for the said asst. yr. 2011-12. He supplied to the petitioner the reasons recorded for issuing such notice, which read as under:

"In this case, on verification of records, it is found that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of Manufacturing of Ceramic Tiles. On the basis of information available with this office, assessee company had issued its shares at huge premiums during financial year 2010-11. On verification of "Part-A-BS" of return of income filed by the assessee company, it is found that the assessee company has shown "issued, subscribed and paid-up" share capital of Rs. 2,66,57,000. During the financial year 2010-11, the assessee had issued 60,000 shares at a face value of Rs. 10 per share with a premium of Rs. 990 per share. Hence the premium received by the assessee per share is Rs. 990 for the share of face value of Rs. 109. On the basis of the assets and liabilities furnished by the assessee company in its balance sheet, and computing the net worth of the company, per share valuation of the assessee company comes out to Rs. 33. Hence the shares of the company have been subscribed by the shareholders at a premium which is very high in comparison to the real worth of the shares. Further assessee company has shown total income of Rs. nil for asst. yr. 2011-12.

It is difficult to accept the fact that a person will invest in the share capital of a private limited company at such a huge premium which is even higher than the real worth of the share. In fact a sound investor will never subscribe to the shares of the company with such meager profits at such high premiums. A detailed analysis of the data furnished by the assessee with its return shows that whereas the net worth of the shares issued is Rs. 33, the same have been allotted for Rs. 1000, i.e. an excess of Rs. 967.

In my opinion this excess premium amount of Rs. 967 is unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee. Hence I have reasons to believe that income to the extent of Rs. 5,80,20,000 has escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee for asst. yr. 2011-12.

I have, therefore, reasons to believe that income/gain chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the asst. yr. 2011-12. The above income/gain chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part of the above named assessee who failed to disclose fully and truly all material fact necessary for the assessment for the asst. yr. 2011-12 within the meaning of Expln. 2(b) of s. 147 of the IT Act, 1961.

Hence it is a fit case for reopening the assessment for asst. yr. 2011-12.

Issue Note (notice) under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961."

2. The petitioner raised objections to the notice for reopening under communication Dt. 20th Aug., 2015. Such objections were rejected by the AO by order Dt. 18th Sept., 2015. The petitioner has therefore filed this petition. Facts are substantially similar in all cases.

3. Learned counsel Shri J.P. Shah for the petitioner submitted that the AO, once having accepted the return, could not have issued notice for reopening on the basis of material which was already on record. In his contention, therefore, the AO had to have some tangible material which did not form part of the original record to enable him to issue notice for reopening, failing which the AO would be merel