Court held that the reasons for reopening were furnished to the assessee, a reading of which showed that the Assessing Officer proposed to apply section 2(47) of the Act and observed that the assessee had not admitted the income in its return and offered it to tax. The issue pertaining to the amount of advance received by the assessee, namely, Rs. 9 crores was never the subject matter of the reopening proceedings. This was sufficient to hold the assessment order dated March 25, 2015 to be a nullity. Court also held that even on the merits the joint development agreement did not take off and ultimately, in February 2015, the developer addressed the assessee to return the amount of Rs. 9 crores before March 31, 2015. Even at that point of time, the agreement was not cancelled and the power of attorney granted to the developer remained in force. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, could the sum of Rs. 9 crores in the hands of the assessee be treated to be a windfall gain as it did not accrue to the assessee as a result of circumstances outside its control. Therefore, the finding of the Assessing Officer was incorrect. There was no finding rendered by the Assessing Officer that the sum of Rs. 9 . Therefore, on the facts, the Assessing Officer could not have held that this was on account of a windfall gain to be brought to tax under the head Income from other sources.( AY.2007-08)