Allowing the petition the Court held that on a plain reading of the reasons recorded, it was evident that all the facts were already before the Assessing Officer at the time of scrutiny assessment and no fresh material had been relied upon by him for the purpose of reopening the assessment. The reasons for the notice of reassessment revealed that the Audit Department had raised objections in respect of both the issues on which the assessment was sought to be reopened. On both the counts, the Assessing Officer did not accept the objections and gave his explanation for not accepting them. However, the audit department found the reply of the Assessing Officer not tenable. Evidently, therefore, the formation of belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment was not that of the Assessing Officer, but was based upon the borrowed satisfaction of the audit department. The notice of reassessment was not valid.( AY.2012-13)