Allowing the appeal the appeal against the order of single judge order the Court held that the details called for by the Assessing Officer, pursuant to the notice under section 142(1) and the response of the assessee to all the queries were taken note of and those details read along with the original assessment order showed that the order was not passed without due application of mind. All the materials which were the subject matter of the scrutiny assessment had been verbatim taken up on the alleged ground of reopening. That apart, these materials were culled out from the records, relating to the assessee, which were stated to be miscellaneous records. They were part of the assessment records and in the absence of any contention that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment on account of the reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, if a reopening was done, it amounted to a change of opinion and a review of the earlier assessment order, which was impermissible. The judge had dismissed the writ petition largely due to the stand taken by the Assessing Officer and the assessee’s submissions were not considered. The order of the judge was set aside. (AY.2011-12)