Harsha Devani, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the notice dated 23.03.2015 issued by the respondent under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") seeking to reopen the assessment of the petitioner for assessment year 2011-12.

2. The petitioner is an individual and derives income by way of rented property, capital gains and income from other sources and is regularly assessed to income tax. The petitioner filed her return of income for assessment year 2011-12 on 06.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 9,00,460/-, which inter alia included long term capital gain on sale of one-half share in Banker's bungalow, Pritamnagar, Ahmedabad. The return of income was selected for scrutiny and the assessment came to be completed under section 143(3) of the Act after calling for and detailed scrutiny of documents, papers, etc., including the details in respect of the sale of one-half share in Banker's bungalow, Pritamnagar, Ahmedabad. During the course of regular assessment proceedings, the respondent issued notices dated 12.08.2013 and 10.09.2013 under section 142(1) of the Act and thereafter, from time to time, called for the details/clarifications relating to long term capital gain shown in respect of the said bungalow. It is the case of the petitioner that in response thereto, she had submitted complete details by a reply dated 08.10.2013 and thereafter, from time to time, as and when called for. The details so provided included a valuation report of the property in question as on 01.04.1981 prepared by a Registered Valuer Shri Induprasad C. Patel, allotment advice in respect of capital gain bond of Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd., the decision of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Aspi Ginwala v. ACIT, etc. After considering the aforesaid material, the Assessing Officer framed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act on 15.10.2013 determining the taxable income of the petitioner at Rs. 9,00,460/-.

3. Thereafter, the respondent issued the impugned notice dated 23.03.2015 under section 148 of the Act, proposing to reopen the assessment of the petitioner for assessment year 2011-12. In response to the notice, the petitioner filed a letter dated 25.03.2015 asking the Assessing Officer to treat the original return of income filed on 06.09.2011 as her return of income in response to the impugned notice and also requested for a copy of reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. By a letter dated 30.04.2015, a copy of the reasons recorded on 19.03.2015 came to be furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted her objections thereto by a reply dated 20.05.2015. By an order dated 23.07.2015, the respondent rejected the objections raised by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that during the course of hearing of reassessment, the respondent was once again explained that the reopening of the assessment was illegal and unlawful. However, since the respondent persisted with the proceedings, the petitioner has approached this court by way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Mr. S.N. Divatia, learned advocate for the petitioner drew the attention of the court to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment to point out that from the reasons recorded, it is evident that this is a case of change of opinion on both the items proposed to be reassessed. It was submitted that merely because in the case of a co-owner a view is taken, on that borrowed satisfaction, the Assessing Officer seeks to reopen the assessment. According to the learned counsel, merely because the valuation report is not accepted in the case of the co-owner, is not a good ground for reopening the assessment in the case of the petitioner. The impugned notice as well as the reassessment proceedings are, therefore, illegal, unlawful and without jur