On writ the assessee contended that the documents on the basis of which the Assessing Officer had formed the reason to believe that income had escaped assessment were not supplied to the assessee, and that the request for opportunity of cross-examination of the persons on the basis of whose statements during the survey under section 133A according to the report of the Deputy Director (Inv) the reopening was supposed to have been directed was not provided to the assessee. Allowing the petition the Court held that  the reopening of the assessment was bad in law for failure to supply the vital documents on the basis of which the reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment under section 147 were formed. The report of the Deputy Director (Inv) was not supplied prior to the reassessment order being passed. The assessment order itself had stated that in response to the notice issued under section 148 the assessee had submitted objections to the reopening of the assessment under section 147. Such objections were not separately considered by the Assessing Officer as mandatorily required by the Supreme Court. The reasons for reopening of the assessment had merely repeated the language of the report of the Deputy Director (Inv) without any independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The reassessment order under section 143(3) read with section 147 was unsustainable and therefore, to be set aside. The consequential demand notice under section 156 was also set aside. (AY.2011-12)