Allowing the petition the Court held that all the primary facts were placed before the Assessing Officer by the assessee. The search action under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, did not reveal any tangible material qua the transaction of unsecured loan from JMPL. In fact, the assessee was called upon to explain the very transaction, in respect of which, during the course of scrutiny assessment, the then Assessing Officer had already solicited information and documents. Eventually, during the course of scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer having been satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee, did not make any addition. Even in the course of the proceedings under section 153A, the Department did not claim that any incriminating material was found qua the transaction with JMPL. In this view of the matter, the reopening of the assessment on the premise that the creditor lacked the creditworthiness and thus the loan transaction was sham, was nothing but a change of opinion. The notice was not valid. (AY. 2013-14)