← All Phrases

“reopening of assessment”

ReassessmentSections 147-151Sections 147-1514,262 judgments

The decision most relied on for reopening of assessment is GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (259 ITR 19), cited in 1,349 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on reopening of assessment

GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO
259 ITR 19 · 2003 · Supreme Court
1,349
citing judgments

When a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons for reopening upon the assessee's request and must dispose of the assessee's objections to the notice by passing a speaking order.

ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.
291 ITR 500 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,030
citing judgments

For initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147, the Assessing Officer needs only prima facie material providing a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or the sufficiency/correctness of the material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice under Section 148.

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO
236 ITR 34 · 1999 · Supreme Court
862
citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings under Section 148, the Assessing Officer only needs prima facie material to have a reason to believe income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or evaluation of the sufficiency and correctness of such material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice.

CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd.
216 CTR 195 · 2008 · Supreme Court
854
citing judgments

If an assessee company receives share application money from alleged bogus shareholders and provides their details to the Assessing Officer, no addition can be made under Section 68 in the company's hands; the Department must proceed against the shareholders by reopening their individual assessments.

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.
331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court
694
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd.
380 ITR 612 · 2016 · High Court
689
citing judgments

Completed assessments can be interfered with under Section 153A or 153C only on the basis of incriminating material unearthed during the search, necessitating a direct correlation between the discovered material and the power to assess or reopen concluded assessments.

Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal
444 ITR 1 · 2022 · Supreme Court
524
citing judgments

Notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income-tax Act between April 1, 2021, and May 4, 2022, must be treated as notices issued under the new Section 148A(b) of the amended law. This requires the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure prescribed under the amended reassessment provisions, including issuing an order under Section 148A(d) before a fresh notice under Section 148.

PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
395 ITR 677 · 2017 · High Court
471
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated solely based on an investigation wing/appraisal report, without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment, are beyond jurisdiction, bad in law, and void ab initio.

Judgments citing reopening of assessment

Rama Shanker Pareek, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 7(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 253/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69CSection 80C

section 50C of the Act would apply, of course, subject to the riders contained therein. However, this is not the cited reason for reopening the assessment. The reasons cited are that the assessee filed no return and that 1/3rd share of the assessee from the actual sale consideration of Rs.1 ... Rames Bhojprasad Gupta vs. ITO ITA No. 476/SRT/2019, Feb 7, 2022 (2022) 64 CCH 0090 SuratTrib it has been held That Reassessment— Reopening of assessment—AO on basis of AIR information noted that assessee made deposit in his bank account in PNB—AO recorded that in response to notice under

Dinessh Kumar Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward4(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1393/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Shivangi Chopra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

reasons to believe' for reopening assessment under section 147 of the Act. However, the learned AO failed to conduct further independent inquiry before reopening the assessment proceedings. 1.2 In this regard, reasons for reopening as per the assessment order are reproduced herewith for your ready reference- As per the details/information ... recorded reasons w/s 147 & found it a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. 1.3 Accordingly, the Learned AO reopened the assessment in the present case, believing that long term capital gain amounting to Rs.15,95,000/- was earned by the appellant during relevant assessment year

Tasleem Bano, Jaipur vs. Ward-5(4) Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 171/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Apeksha Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT -DR a
Section 127Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 292B

deserves to be set aside and quashed 3. Without prejudice tothe GOA-1 & 2, on the facts and circumstances of the case reopening of assessment was bad in law w.r.t.sechon 147 of the IT Act. The Ld. AO has reopened the case on the basis of reason tosuspect ... Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed for non-pursuasion. 5.2. On merits: Ground No. 1: This ground is related to reopening of assessment. After verification of the details available with the Department, it was noticed that the appellant has deposited total cash

DCIT, Circle-I, Ludhiana vs. Findoc Investment Private Limited, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 863/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 863/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Dcit, Vs M/S Findoc Investment Pvt.Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Kartar Bhawan, Ludhiana. Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabcf8332L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar & Shri Aditya Kumar, Cas Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar & Shri Aditya Kumar, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148

transmitted, he formed an opinion that assessee has generated fictitious loss in derivative trading to the tune of Rs.3,56,25,248/-. He reopened the assessment and thereafter passed the re-assessment order on 27.03.2022 u/s 147 read with Section 144B of the Income ... objection that the appellant was not given proper opportunity before passing the assessment order. In the circumstances, this ground is dismissed. Validity of reopening of assessment u/s. 148 and re-assessment proceedings 7. In Ground of Appeal Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and the amended ground (in the place

Swetank Madhuvir Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2155/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarshri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr DR
Section 147Section 234Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)

S.250(6) of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in upholding reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act which is bad in law and without jurisdiction. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts

M/S. Manohar Dealcom Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 9(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 739/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jun 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: us, the Ld. AR pointed out the chronology of event through detailed submissions filed for the purpose of assisting the Bench. He reiterated the fact that ultimately the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued beyond the time prescribed for issuing such notice. 2.2 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below.

Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250

cases where income that escaped assessment amounts to ₹50 lakhs or more, assessments can be reopened within ten years. The new regime prohibits reopening of assessments that were time-barred under the old regime. The provisions of section 149 of the new regime are as under: 149. (1) No notice

Alauddin, Agra vs. ITO, Ward 1(1)(1), Agra

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 241/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(14)Section 250Section 54

reasons to believe before initiating the proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. It shows that the ld. Assessing Officer followed the procedure for reopening of assessment by first framing the reasons to believe that the income in the form of capital gains chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

New Rampgreen Technologies Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-7(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 161/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) New Rampgreen Technologies Ito Ward 7(2)(1) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 126 Centre Gd Ambedkar Marg Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Wadala So,Mumbai-400 031. M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aadcv9341F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri Nikunj Jain
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

also observed that the appellant did not respond to the notice under section 148 of the Act. Subsequently, the Ld. AO reopened the assessment and issued notices under section 142(1) of the Act. In response to these notices, the appellant filed a letter dated 28.9.2021 stating the company ... Ld.AO is incorrect. Subsequently, additional grounds of appeal were filed by the appellant company before the appeal was posted for hearing, challenging the reopening of assessment by stating that the reopening was done based on the contents of Audit report which was already there before Ld. AO when the assessment

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Paras Jain, Delhi

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3554/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandrathe Income-Tax Officer Vs. Shri Paras Jain Ward – 58(7) 164-B, Gali No. - 5 Delhi Azad Nagar, East Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69Section 69C

hand, the appellant has provided sufficient compliance during the course of assessment proceedings. What was the information in his possession that led to reopening of assessment was also not mentioned either in the order passed u/s 148A(d) or from the final assessment order passed

ITO Ward - 20(1), New Delhi vs. Plus Corporate Ventures Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the assessment order passed in the present case is quashed as invalid

ITA 9441/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Dr. Maninder Kaur, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Apoorva Bhardwaj & Shri
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

within the meaning of Section 147/148 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 5 Prior to 1989 section 147 provided for two grounds to reopen concluded assessments: (i) On basis of information received by the Assessing Officer assessment could be reopened. This had to be within four years. (ii) Where facts material ... reason to believe that there is escapement of income. The first requirement regarding information is now dropped by 1989 amendment and therefore for reopening of assessment within a period of 4 years from the end of the assessment year, the only requirement is "reason to believe". For a period beyond

Bardc Bank, Bhatkal vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 294/PAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.294/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2013-14) Bardc Bank Bhatkal, Vs National E – Pld Bank, Main Road, Assessment Centre . Uttara Kannada, Delhi-110001 Bhatkal S.O. Karnataka-581320. Pan .No. Aaaap1731G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

assessment for that assessment year” 6. Further we found that the A.O has issued notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2021 for reopening of assessment. Whereas the original assessment was completed u/sec 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 19.12.2015. The A.O has recorded the reasons without ... original assessment proceedings U/sec143(3) of the Act and the A.O after verifying the facts and information has passed order on 19-12-2015.Therefore the reopening of assessment is based on the same set of facts and is only a change of opinion. 7. We considering the facts and circumstances and evidences

ACIT Circle-64(1), New Delhi vs. Ashima Neb, Noida

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 4206/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3953 और 4206 /िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Gautam Jain, Parth Singhal & Ankit Kumar, Advocates
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 4

dated 18.02.2019 for assessment year 2008-09. The Revenue in appeal has assailed findings of the CIT(A) holding reopening of assessment bad in law, as well as deleting the additions made by Assessing Officer (AO) in proceeding u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Income ... aforesaid complaints, the AO initiated reassessment proceedings and issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 26.03.2015. 4. The assessee objected to reopening of assessment inter alia challenging the jurisdiction of AO who had issued the notice and also raising serious objection on the veracity of allegations leveled

ACIT Circle-64(1), New Delhi vs. Ashima Neb, Noida

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 3953/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3953 और 4206 /िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Gautam Jain, Parth Singhal & Ankit Kumar, Advocates
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 4

dated 18.02.2019 for assessment year 2008-09. The Revenue in appeal has assailed findings of the CIT(A) holding reopening of assessment bad in law, as well as deleting the additions made by Assessing Officer (AO) in proceeding u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Income ... aforesaid complaints, the AO initiated reassessment proceedings and issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 26.03.2015. 4. The assessee objected to reopening of assessment inter alia challenging the jurisdiction of AO who had issued the notice and also raising serious objection on the veracity of allegations leveled

Ashok Kumar Maloo, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 308/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.308/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ashok Kumar Maloo Ground Floor, Halwai Line, Sadar Bazar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adtpm9149C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Golechha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 147Section 151Section 154Section 44ASection 69A

seeks to change the nature of assessment without addressing the pending appellate challenge to the underlying addition. 8. The reopening of assessment itself is bad in law, arbitrary and mechanical, without any independent application of mind, merely based on cash deposit data. 3 Ashok Kumar Maloo Vs. ITO, Ward

Green View Developers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 13(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 36/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jun 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, DR
Section 144Section 147

Shri P.N. Barnwal, DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. It was submitted by the Id. DR that the assessee has challenged the reopening of assessment and the reasons are recorded and shown at page nos. 11 to 14 of the Paper Book. It was further the submission that

Shri Amit Jayantilal Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2950/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tralshawala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69C

Shri Amit Jayantilal Doshi 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- Reopening of assessment is bad in law and liable to be quashed The Ld. NFAC [CIT(A)] has erred in dismissing the grounds relating to reopening of the assessment in para 5.2.1 of the order without appreciating that

DCIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi vs. Al Ammar Frozen Foods Exports Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 2180/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44ASection 80I

I.T.A. No. 2180/Del/2023 & CO No.116/Del/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH "A" NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA

Naveen Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-26(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 592/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 153C

mere incorrect mentioning of section on account of the mistake. (emphasis supplied by us) ………….. 11 5.12. Since the entire reopening of assessment had been quashed on the aforesaid aspect, we need not go into other grounds raised by the assessee both on law as well as on merits and they ... return in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee sought the copy of reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, which were duly furnished to the assessee on 9-11-2015. During the course of hearing, the approval papers under section 151 of the Act granted

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sea Point Trading & Builders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1731/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judical Member & Shri Manish Agarwalasst. Commissioner Of M/S. Sea Point Trading & Income Tax, Builders Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-2, Vs. B-4/43, 2Nd Floor, New Delhi. Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029. Pan: Aabcs0741C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Department By Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/06/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [Ld. Cit(A), In Short], Dt. 29.01.2026 In Appeal No. 16/2015-16 For Assessment Year 2012-13 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short). 2. The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Correct In Law & On Facts. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Laws In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.6,35,00,000/- Made By Ao On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of The Act Received From M/S Manan Merchandise Pvt. Ltd.”

Section 127Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

assessee on the ground of reopening u/s 147 is as under: ACIT Vs. Sea Point Trading &Builders Pvt. Ltd. “4.1.7 As regards reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act and recording of reasons therefor, it is settled law as held by various Courts including the Hon’ble Supreme Court ... reopened and the existence of such reasons and a direct nexus between those reasons and the alleged evasion is a condition precedent for reopening of assess ment; and in the absence of application of mind to the facts alleged to have been found the decision arrived at that income escaped

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Belisma Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1728/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Acit, Vs M/S. Belisma Buildcon Central Circle-2, Pvt.Ltd.,77, Ss House, Sector-44, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana-122003. Pan-Aadcb9647C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2025 Order

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Revenue in appeal before us. The relevant observations of Ld.CIT(A) as contained in para 4.1.7 are as under:- 4.17. “As regards reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act and recording of reasons therefore, it is settled law as held by various Courts including the H'ble Supreme Court ... reopened and the existence of such reasons and a direct nexus between those reasons and the alleged evasion is a condition precedent for reopening of assessment; and in the absence of application of mind to the facts alleged to have been found the decision arrived at that income escaped assessment