Allowing the petition the Court held that  the same Assessing Officer had not accepted the audit objections in the original assessment under section 143(3). Therefore, it was clear that the Assessing Officer had issued the notice under section 148 on the ground of direction issued by the audit party and not on his personal satisfaction which was not permissible under law. The very same Assessing Officer had submitted a proforma report on the draft audit proposed to be included in the audit report by the Comptroller and Auditor General to the Principal Commissioner during the original assessment when he was of the opinion that the claim of the assessee had claimed correctly and that the set-off of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to the amalgamating company was correctly allowed as per the provisions of section 72A(4) and not as per the provisions of section 72A(1) as mentioned in the audit observation sheet. In less than 45 days, the very same Assessing Officer had relied on the same audit objection, stating that he had reasons to believe that the assessee’s income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment under section 147 on that account. The assessee had given the full particulars and the stand taken by the assessee was also accepted by the Department on the merits. The Assessing Officer who had disagreed with the audit objections in the original assessment on second thoughts had accepted the audit objections and had sought to reopen the assessment without any basis but merely on a change of opinion which was not permissible while exercising the powers under section 147 read with section 148. Accordingly, the notice issued under section 148 and the order rejecting the objections of the assessee were quashed and set aside.(AY.2015-16)