There was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts necessary for her assessment. Therefore, the notice issued under section 148 was barred by limitation and consequential assessment framed by the Assessing Officer would be nullity. Reassessment proceedings merely at the behest of an audit objection as based on mere appraisal of the same record without any tangible material or information, would be bad in law. In the present case, there was no independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer while recording the reasons for reopening. There was no new tangible material to reopen the case. Therefore, the assessment was bad in law. CIT v. Foramer France (2003) 264 Itr 566 (SC)  and PCIT v. S. Chand and Co. L td. [2018) 409 ITR (St.) 15 (SC). Delay of 230 days is condoned.  (AY.  2012-13)