Allowing the petition the Court held that ; under very similar circumstances in the case of this very assessee, a notice under section 148 for reopening of assessment was quashed by the court. The only distinction between the two cases was that in the present case, the return was accepted without scrutiny whereas in the judgment, the assessment for the assessment year 2009-10 which was sought to be reopened was initially made after scrutiny. However, this distinction was of no material since the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer in both cases were exactly the same. The cause on which the notice was quashed in the earlier case was available in the present petition also. In the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) deleted this addition. The Assessing Officer had believed that in that order, the Commissioner (Appeals) had observed that it would be the assessee, who would be liable to explain the source of the cash. It was for such purpose that the notice had been issued. For the earlier assessment year the notice of reopening was quashed by the High Court holding that the Assessing Officer had taken the observations of the Commissioner (Appeals) out of context and made them the basis of formation of his belief that income chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee has escaped assessment, that to link the observations of the Commissioner (Appeals) he had not referred to any other material at his command which even prima facie suggested that the assessee had paid such sum, that when the belief was founded on no material whatsoever and too inadequate to form a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, the court even at that stage would interject. Accordingly  the notice for reopening of the assessment was to be set aside. ( AY.2010-11)