Allowing the appeal against the order of single judge the Court held that   the reopening of the assessment under section 147 was without jurisdiction. The Act does not provide for any remedy against the order disposing of the objections by the Assessing Officer and therefore, writ petitions filed under article 226 are maintainable and the court would be entitled to consider whether the reopening was justified and whether the parameters, which were required to be fulfilled, while invoking the provisions of section 147 or section 148 stood attracted. The writ petition was maintainable against the order disposing of the objections of the assessee and the court could scrutinize whether the reopening was on a change of opinion and there was any attempt to review the original order of assessment. However, there could not be an adjudication into the merits or roving enquiry into the merits of the assessment to conclude whether the reopening was justified or not. Prima facie, the Assessing Officer should be able to establish that the reopening of assessment was not on account of a change of opinion, be it within four years or beyond four years. Court also held that what the Assessing Officer had purported to do was to review his earlier decision. It was not for the assessee to tell the Assessing Officer how he had to complete the assessment. The duty of the assessee was to make a full and true disclosure of all materials and if put on notice calling for additional materials, to fully and truly disclose all materials. Thereafter, it was for the Assessing Officer to take a call on the materials and whatever was the concern, it was to be traced in the assessment under section 143(3). The Assessing Officer, while disposing of the objections had not touched upon the issue raised by the assessee relating to jurisdiction. The matter could not be remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration since the power to reopen was a very powerful tool which was required to be exercised in accordance with law and not otherwise. Reassessment notice was quashed.  Referred Calcutta Discount  Co Ltd v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC), Whirpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks (1998) 8 SCC 1. (AY.2010-11)