Assessee contended that he has disclosed all the primary facts regarding purchases from the concerned parties at the time or original assessment. The Tribunal relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) which held that there is a conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess, wherein review means taking second view if two views are possible. If Ld. AO has taken a view in assessment, then he cannot change his view u/s. 147 on the basis of his personal opinions. Further, the Tribunal also relied on decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Direct Information Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2011)203 Taxman 70 (Bom) (HC)) wherein it was held that unless the Ld. AO has tangible material before him on basis of which he comes to conclusion that income has escaped assessment, reopening of an assessment cannot be permitted merely on ground that there is a change in view of Ld. AO and he subsequently believes that earlier view was incorrect. Respectfully following the above judgments, the Tribunal held that the notice
u/s. 148 issued by the Ld. AO was bad in law. (AY.2008-09 to 2010-11)