Held that the Assessing Officer had recorded wrong facts on many counts in the reasons recorded. He recorded that no assessment had been completed under section 143(3) but in the reason itself the Assessing Officer recorded that earlier reassessment had been done under section 147 / 148 read with section 143(3) of the Act, and that the sanction for reopening of assessment was required under the proviso to section 151(1) of the Act although such proviso did not exist in the statute since it was amended in 2015. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had recorded wrong, incorrect and non-existing reasons for reopening of the assessment. There was total non-application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer. The reasons failed to demonstrate the live link between the alleged tangible material and the formation of belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Reassessment was quashed. (AY.2010-11)