Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that the reasons recorded  for issue of notice were unsustainable on the facts as well as on law. The assessee had not suppressed any material facts and whatever materials were in its possession, had been submitted by the assessee in response to the notice under S.  148 . The ITO had passed the order of assessment and had also drawn the attention of the Deputy Director of Revenue Audit as to such material, especially referring to the amount in question and had prayed for dropping of the audit objections in respect of the assessment year 2007-08. In the light of the materials available, it was obligatory on the part of the Assessing Officer to record reasons for the purpose of believing that income had escaped assessment. The findings recorded by the Tribunal as to non-application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer to apply his mind independently for the purpose of reopening of the assessment were proper because the very same official, in response to the audit objection, had taken into consideration all the materials placed and requested dropping of the audit objection and therefore, passing of the second order of assessment by him amounted to change of opinion on the very same set of facts. There was no error or infirmity in the reasons assigned by the Tribunal in dismissing the appeal filed by the Department and allowing of the cross-objection filed by the assessee.( AY.2007-08)