Allowing the petition the Court held that the Assessing Officer except quoting a few portions from the third Shah Commission Report and the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (Mumbai), failed to link such material to believe on his part that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer did not apply his independent mind to the information received by him from third Shah Commission Report and information received from Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai to independently assess his reasons to believe. That the notice for reopening was issued on October 20, 2014 claiming that there was reason to believe that income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2008-09 escaped assessment. Thus, it was clear that such notice under section 148 of the Act was issued beyond four years and thus additional reasons had to be there that though the assessee was aware, suppressed the material facts while submitting the returns.  That first of all placing reliance only on the opinion in the third Shah Commission Report without independently assessing or recording reasons by the Assessing Officer was a jurisdictional error on the part of such officer. Secondly when the notice was issued beyond the period of four years, conditions regarding disclosure to be made fully and truly was also not established for the simple reason that the fact that the lease in question was illegal beyond November 22, 2007 was not in the knowledge of the assessee while submitting returns for the year 2008-09 and also for the year 2011-12. The Supreme Court in the year 2014 for the first time declared that the mining leases in Goa beyond November 22, 2007 were illegal. Thus prior to 2014, i.e., declaration by the Supreme Court neither the assessee nor the Assessing Officer had knowledge that such leases were illegal, the question of making such declaration in the year 2008-09 or 2011-12 while submitting returns would not arise.  (AY.2008-09, 2011-12)