The petitioner challenged the validity of the reassessment notice  on the ground that since the shares were transferred  by way of gift no consideration was received by the petitioner. Allowing the petition the court held that  S. 45,  47 and S. 48 makes it clear that the AO could not have any tangible material to form a belief that income has escaped assessment.On scrutiny of the statutory provisions as the transaction in question does not invite any tax liability, one cannot accept the submission that there is some tangible material to form a belief that there is an escapement of income. Even if there is a transfer of a capital asset under a gift, which admittedly in the case herein, it shall not amount to a transfer under S. 45. Submission that assessee being a trust it can be reasonably presumed that the transfer was for a consideration because anything a trust does is for the benefit of its beneficiaries was not sustainable because it is not the case of the Revenue in the reasons to believe or in the order disposing objections or even in the affidavit-in-reply. Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed. Relied on Prakriya Pharmacem v. ITO (2016) 66 taxmann.com 149 (Guj)(HC) (AY. 2010-11)