Held  that the reasons recorded clearly stated that they were recorded merely on the basis of the information received by the Assessing Officer from the Director of Income-tax (Investigation) relating to the accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer had not recorded any other information as to the extent of income which had escaped from the assessment for the AY. 2009-10 in the case of the assessee by these accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer simply repeated the information that he had received from the Director of Income-tax (Investigation). The reopening of the assessment was bad in law, since the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind but had reproduced information received from the Director of Income-tax (Investigation) which was nothing but “borrowed information”. Therefore, reopening of the assessment itself being bad in law, the entire re-assessment was liable to be quashed. Tribunal also held that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not followed the jurisdictional Tribunal’s decision which is  not in accordance with judicial discipline. As regards share application money the assessee has explained properly hence the addition is not valid. (AY. 2009-10)