The petition was carrying on business of mining and export of iron ore. After scrutiny, assessment order under section 143(3) was passed. Reassessment proceedings were initiated after the expiry of four years on basis of information of Shah Commission Report that there was under invoicing of export by exporters of iron ore, Assessing Officer initiated reassessment.  The reasons for reopening the assessment was as under (i) There was under invoicing of exports by the assessee, (ii) alternatively , mining activity being illegal ,income arising from it ought to be assessed as inform other sources and (iii) escapement of income from assessment was on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose wholly and truly all material facts  necessary for the assessment. On writ allowing the petition the Court held that since under-invoicing was nothing but a matter of expression of opinion by Commission, Assessing Officer could not follow same as primary for reopening assessment. As Assessing Officer had not applied his mind to this aspect of matter, reassessment order was to be quashed as there was nothing to indicate that any particular income has accrued to anyone as a result of such difference in prices.  As regards the allegation of illegality the Court held that when the income from the activity of mining and export ore arose also when  it was assessed to tax there was nothing to suggest that the activity was illegal. Accordingly the notice of reassessment was held to be invalid.  Ratio in Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO (1996) 236 ITR 34 (SC) is distinguished. (AY. 2008-09)