ORDER : 1. Mr. R.L. Jain, learned Sr. Counsel with Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned Counsel for the appellant revenue. 2. Heard on the question of admission. 3. This is an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act against an order dated 20-4-2009 passed in ITA No. 152//99-01 passed by ITAT Indore. 4. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether appeal involves any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 260A ibid and if so whether this appeal is liable to be admitted for final hearing on such question. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for appellant and on perusal of record of the case, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal, because in our opinion the appeal does not involve any question of law much less substantial question of law which is required to be made out under Section 260A ibid. 6. The question arose before the Assessing Officer as to whether any case is made out under Section 148 for re-opening of the assessment for the year 1992-93 against assessment. The Assessing Officer held that it was so made out and accordingly action under Section 148 of the Act was initiated. This action of the Assessing Officer was questioned by the assessee in appeal before CIT (Appeals) who while allowing the appeal held that in the absence of any material, there was no justifiable reason for issuance of notice under Section 148 ibid. This order was challenged by the Revenue in appeal before ITAT. By the impugned order, the Tribunal upheld the order of CIT (Appeals) and accordingly dismissed the appeal filed by Revenue. It is this order against which the Revenue has filed this appeal. 7. As observed supra, we do not find any substantial question of law arising in this appeal. In our view both the authorities, namely CIT and ITAT rightly held that for want of any material, there was no justification for issuance of notice under Section 148 ibid. In our view it was rightly held that the report of Inspector was not sufficient to warrant issuance of notice on the facts of this case and something more was required. That apart, even the alleged report did not contain any material evidence to enable the Assessing Officer to issue impugned notice under Section 148 ibid for re-opening of assessment. In our view it was rightly held that the report of Inspector was not sufficient to warrant issuance of notice on the facts of this case and something more was required. That apart, even the alleged report did not contain any material evidence to enable the Assessing Officer to issue impugned notice under Section 148 ibid for re-opening of assessment. This, in our opinion, is a pure question of fact. 8. Accordingly and in view of the aforesaid discussions, we find no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed in limine.