Allowing the petition the Court held that in the reasons recorded that there was no mention at all of the assessee having not disclosed fully or truly material facts which were necessary for the purpose of computing the income of the assessee. Even on the merits there was no basis to proceed on the premise that the allocation of shares was at an artificially high premium. Merely because a sizeable sum was received in the nature of share premium during the year under consideration, that would not automatically mean that the same was artificially increased. The duty on the part of the assessee to explain the nature of credits and genuineness and justification of the share premium would arise when called upon during the assessment or a validly reopened assessment. At any rate, the reopening of assessment which was framed after the scrutiny would not be permissible for a fishing or roving inquiry. The notice of reassessment was not valid.( AY. 2011-12)