Allowing the petition the Court held that since the notice under section 148 had been issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant AY. 2014-15 the Assessing Officer had to show that the jurisdictional requirement of failure on the part of the assessee to truly and fully disclose material facts during the original assessment was satisfied. The reasons recorded were premised on “seen from the assessment records”. The Assessing Officer had recorded that the assessee had claimed to have purchased shares of the penny stock scrips for a total of Rs. 33,09,976 and sold them for a consideration of Rs. 1,15,90,280 and that the long-term capital gains would be unexplained investment from other sources to obtain an equivalent amount of bogus profit on sale of shares and not capital gains as claimed by the assessee. There was nothing to indicate any failure by the assessee to disclose any material fact. According to the original assessment order under section 143(3) the Assessing Officer had considered these very transactions and had made an addition of Rs. 1,07,18,922 to the assessee’s income on which he had already paid the tax. There was no substance in the Assessing Officer’s reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment under section 147 inasmuch as there was no mention of any tangible material that had led to his conclusion. The reopening of assessment was on a change of opinion which was impermissible. It was evident that bald assertions of the transaction being “an accommodation entry made in collusion and connivance with the entry provider” were used to reopen the assessment. The notice was quashed and set aside. All subsequent proceedings were prohibited. (AY.2014-15)