Dismissing the petition the Court held that , the parent co does not have sufficient funds to invest such huge amounts in Indian subsidiaries. The funds are routed through a web of entities spread across various jurisdictions, mostly in tax havens. The investments so made, are required to be investigated and the credit worthiness of the investing company is in jeopardy, in view of the information received from the investigation wing. This exercise can be undertaken during the re-reassessment proceedings to finally determine if the amounts represent undisclosed income of the assessee which is required to be taxed in its hands. At the stage of re-opening, only a reason to believe should exist with regard to escapement of income. Definite conclusion would be drawn after raising queries upon the assessee in the light of s. 68 of the Act  .  Where necessary sanction to issue reopening notice under section 148 was obtained from PCIT as per provision of section 151, PCIT  was not required to provide elaborate reasoning to arrive at a finding of approval when he was satisfied with reasons of reopening recorded by AO . Once amalgamating company had merged with assessee amalgamated entity, amalgamating company ceased to exist in its individual capacity, thus, a reopening notice was to be issued only in name of merged entity and there was no requirement to issue two separate notices in name of amalgamated company as successor-in-interest of amalgamating company and to amalgamating company in its individual capacity, as amalgamated company had taken over liabilities of amalgamating company  .(W.P.(C) 11302/2019, CM APPL. 46536/2019, CM APPL. 46537/2019& CM APPL. 46538/2019, Dt. 13/2/2020) (AY.2012 -13)