Allowing the petition the Court held that there was no application of mind by the Assessing Officer to the jurisdictional requirements to issue notice under section 148. Firstly, the assessment was sought to be reopened after four years and it was not mentioned that the assessee had failed to disclose all material facts in the reasons supporting the notice for reassessment. Secondly, on the facts, there had been no failure by the assessee to fully and truly disclose all the material facts. The reasons in support of the notice of reassessment under section 147 mentioned the areas in which reassessment needed to be carried out, and the record showed that the material regarding these topics was called for over two occasions from the assessee and was supplied. The first jurisdictional requirement was that the notice must disclose application of mind by the authority seeking to reopen the assessment to the additional requirement under section 147 in case of reopening after four years was missing. The assessee in its objections had pointed out there was no averment in the reasons that the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for the assessment, and factually there had been no such failure. While rejecting the objections, the Assessing Officer had not even noticed this requirement. Accordingly the Court held that, there was no failure by the assessee to fully and truly disclose all the material facts necessary for the assessment. The assessee had explained in the note how the valuation of share premium was arrived at. Having considered the material, it was clear that there was no failure by the assessee to fully and truly disclose all the material facts for the assessment as regards the reasons supplied under the notice for reassessment. (Referred Titanor Components Ltd v ACIT ( 2012) 343 ITR 183 (Bom.)(HC). ( AY. 2012-13)