On a writ petition challenging the notice issued under section 148 for reopening the assessment under section 147, allowing the petition the Court held that  the reasons recorded did not indicate what was the trading activity during the year that the assessee was involved in or from what shares or derivatives the assessee had made huge profit. The fact that the Assessing Officer had explained in the order on the assessee’s objections what was the report and information and details on which he formed a reason to believe would be of no assistance. In the reasons recorded the information based on which the Assessing Officer had formed an opinion that there was reason to believe escapement of income, it was stated that it was related to the AY. 2015-16 but in the conclusion the AY. was mentioned as 2016-17. Therefore, the Assessing Officer himself was not clear for which year or based on information for which year he had proposed to reopen the assessment. The casual excuse of typographical error was not satisfactory. If only the Additional Commissioner, who had recommended the proposal of the Assessing Officer or the recommending authority himself, while according approval under section 151 that the case was fit for issue of notice under section 148 had read the reasons recorded, they would have found the errors and directed the Assessing Officer to correct the reasons or refused to grant approval on reasons fraught with errors. This also indicated non-application of mind by the recommending authority and the approving authority.  The notice issued under section 148 was vitiated. ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) and First source Solutions Ltd. v. ACIT  (2021)  438 ITR 139 (Bom) (HC)  relied on. (AY. 2014-15)