Tribunal held that notice under section 148 was issued to the assessee after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year but before six years. This notice would be within limitation if the Assessing Officer had made out a case that income exceeding rupees one lakh had escaped assessment. No such finding or observation or reference had been made in the reasons. The Assessing Officer had observed that according to information received from the ITO the assessee carried out transaction in shares and securities with GS. This information was factually incorrect or not cross-verified by the Assessing Officer before recording reasons. The assessee had not carried out its shares or securities transactions with GS. Further, there was no coherence between the information available with the Assessing Officer vis-a-vis the transactions of the assessee, and formation of belief that income had escaped the assessment. These reasons were vague and inconclusive. Therefore, on the basis of such reasoning, the assessment of the assessee could not be reopened.( AY.2006-07)