Allowing the appeal the Tribunal held that the assessee had bought the shares in the initial public offer by making payments through cheque. The assessee held the shares for more than a year and sold it in the open market through a registered share broker for which securities transaction tax was paid. Corresponding reduction of shares had also been made from the assessee’s dematerialised statement. Hence, the very basis of the formation of belief that income had escaped assessment is  fallacious. The Assessing Officer had referred to the split-up of S’s shares, which had happened in the year 2015 to allege mala fide motive on the part of the assessee. However, the assessee had actually sold the shares in June, 2014 itself much before the act of splitting up of the shares. Hence, the assessee’s case did not fall under the modus operandi mentioned in the Assessing Officer’s recorded reasons, which did not have live link to the formation of the belief of the Assessing Officer.  The reopening made under section 147 was based on incorrect assumption of facts hence quashed.(AY.2015-16, 2017-18)