Allowing the petition the court held that the notice for reopening the Assessing Officer did not mention what was the new tangible material to justify the reopening and what was the material fact which was not truly and fully disclosed. The entire reference in the reasons recorded was only to the material on record. In the absence of any new tangible material available with the Assessing Officer, and in view of the fact that there is a general presumption that an order of assessment under section 143(3) had been passed after proper application of mind and considering the fact that the Assessing Officer had sought clarification with regard to the details of sale of property and transfer of shares, details whereof were submitted during the course of the proceedings, the issue with regard to transactions with all parties had been gone into by the Assessing Officer. There was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any material facts and consequently the reopening was invalid in view of the proviso to section 147 of the Income-tax Act. Court also held that  when a regular order of assessment is passed in terms of sub-section (3) of section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed on application of mind.  (AY.2015-16)