Assessing Officer issued on assessee a notice for proposing to reopen assessment for reasons that it had made investment for purchase of a property situated at Delhi and had not disclosed investment in return of income and as such investment had escaped assessment. Assessee filed objections stating that it had not procured any property at Delhi and it had rather purchased a land at Pali and this transaction was duly disclosed in return of income.  Against the order of disposing the objection the assessee filed the writ petition. Revenue in reply to writ petition admitted that property at Delhi was inadvertently mentioned in proceedings under section 148 and reference thereto should be considered as property at Pali. Allowing the petition the Court held that  since reasons for reopening assessment were founded on non-existent transaction of purchase of property at Delhi, reassessment proceedings was   quashed.  (AY. 2017-18)