Yogesh Chandra Gupta,J.:- 1. Heard Sri R.B. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri D.D. Chopra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the record. In all these appeals common substantial question of law is involved, hence decided by the present common judgment. The questions framed in these appeals are same. 2. While admitting the present appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Division Bench of this Court had relied upon the following two substantial questions of law: 1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that reassessment under Section 147 was justified on the basis of the forensic report opining on the variance of signatures of the partners on the confirmatory letters admitting their capital contributions with reference to the signatures in the partnership deed, dehors, its relevance to the assessee-firm and the assessment year in question. 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that "reasons to believe" are merely administrative decision despite the provisions of the Act and the settled law on the point that they are relevant to the assumption of jurisdiction and also justiciable in Court of law and the Appellate Authorities. 3. Dispute relates to the Assessment Year 1993-94. The appellant partnership firm was created on 9th May 1992 having ten partners to deal with country liquor under the licence granted by the State. Return was filed on 26th October, 1993 and assessment was made on the total income of Rs.12,47,040/- on 27th March, 1995 and additions were made under Section 68 of the Act for deposits found in the books of account on the ground that only three of the partners were found to be explained the material on record. The Appellate Authority reduced the computed income of Rs. 2,18,640/- with regard to original assessment. 4. However, certain discrepancies were noted by the Assessing Officer in March 1996 with regard to signatures over the confirmatory letters of the partners. Forensic Expert opined that there is significant difference over the signature of the partnership deed and the confirmatory letters which cannot be explained as natural variation. The expert further opined that there appears to be two different writing habits by two different writers. Forensic Expert opined that there is significant difference over the signature of the partnership deed and the confirmatory letters which cannot be explained as natural variation. The expert further opined that there appears to be two different writing habits by two different writers. On the basis of the report of the expert, notices were issued under Section 147 of the Act for the Assessment Year 1993-94. The Assessing Officer had gone through the record with regard to each of the partners and recorded a finding that the amount credited as remuneration is being added to the income of the firm. He further held that entire capital contribution relates to the period prior to the formation of the firm, as contribution made by the partners at the time of auction bid, hence no addition is proposed to be in the hands of the firm. It is to be considered in the personal assessment of the partners. 5. Since salary and interest was not allowed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short "CIT (A)) allowed the appeal and recorded a finding that eight partners whose signatures alleged to differ did not make any investment during the financial year 1992-93 relevant assessment year 1993-94, hence the conclusion drawn by Assessing Officer in paragraph no. 5 of the order with regard to income of Rs.9,40,000/- has escaped assessment is erroneous. The Appellate Authority held that since no fresh investments were made by the persons whose signatures have been disputed or suspected, notices under Section 148 should have been issued. 6. Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had allowed the appeal and held that Assessing Officer in case has "reason to believe" to change the opinion then could have proceed with reassessment under Section 148 of the Act. 7. Relying upon some of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal held that once the reassessment proceedings have validly been initiated, it is the duty of the ITO to levy tax on the entire income, which has escaped assessment in that year. While making such observation, the Tribunal failed to appreciate that difference of signatures relates to the period which has got no concern with the Assessment Year 1993-94. While making such observation, the Tribunal failed to appreciate that difference of signatures relates to the period which has got no concern with the Assessment Year 1993-94. Being the Appellate Authority, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to record the reason for difference of opinion with the Appellate Authority which has not been done. It is very well settled principle of law that while expressing difference of opinion with the subordinate authorities, the Appellate Authority must record reason disclosing its own mind on the points of difference, the same has not been done. 8. Section 147 of the Act provides that in case the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped for any assessment year, he may subject to provisions of Section 143 to 148 assess or reassess. The plain reading of Section 147 shows that opinion should be form by the Assessing Officer with regard to transaction of the same assessment year for which the Assessing Officer want to form an opinion to reassess with regard to escape liability. In any case Assessing Officer has no right to form opinion on the basis of evidence or material which has got no relevance with the respective assessment year. Meaning thereby opinion should have been formed on the basis of material or evidence available for the Year 1992-93 i.e. A.Y. 1993-94, which has not been disputed at bar. The material available relates to previous year. 9. This Court in the case reported in 271 ITR 113 (All), Indra Prastha Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (Division Bench) after considering the catina of judgments of various High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that reason to believe in Section 147 just not being purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the Assessing Officer. It should not be merely credence and Court has got ample power to examine whether reason to believe have rational connection or relevant bearing to the formation of belief and are not extraneous or irrelevant to the purpose of Section. 10. The formation of the required opinion and belief by the Assessing Officer is a condition precedent. Without such formation, Assessing Officer will have no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. Formation of opinion is not merely formality but it is mandatory. 10. The formation of the required opinion and belief by the Assessing Officer is a condition precedent. Without such formation, Assessing Officer will have no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. Formation of opinion is not merely formality but it is mandatory. Failure to fulfil this condition would vitiate the entire proceeding, vide, 1973 (88) ITR 439 : (AIR 1973 SC 2552) (SC), Johri Lal (HUF) Vs. CIT, and 1971 (82) ITR 147 (SC), Sheo Nath Singh Vs. AAC of IT . Aforesaid propositions of law have been reiterated in the case reported in 256 ITR : (2002 Tax LR 756)(Del) (FB) CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 295 ITR 333 (Bom), Siemns Information System Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 225 ITR 490 Smt. Jamila Ansari Vs. Income Tax Department and 280 ITR 77 Dass Friends Builders P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT. 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in 102 ITR 281 Ajanta Industries and others Vs. C.B.D.T. has held that the reason for recording of reason in the order and making these reasons known to assessee is to give an opportunity to the assessee to approach the High Court under its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution or Supreme Court under Article 136 in appropriate case for challenging the order inter alia either on the ground that it is malafide or arbitrary or is based on irrelevant or extraneous consideration. Whether such a writ petition or special leave petition is not relevant for decision of the question. 12. In the case reported in 259 ITR 19 (SC) GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO, their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court while reiterating the aforesaid provisions of law had upheld that in case reason is not disclosed or is based on irrelevant consideration, alteranative remedy is not bar for the High Court to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. Their Lordships further held that income Tax Officer has no power to review his order, he could not do any purported exercise under Section 147 of the Act mere on fact that for another year, different view was taken by the Tribunal and it shall not make out a case for having reason to believe to proceed under Section 148 of the Act. 13. One other recent judgment referred by the learned counsel for the appellant reported in 2010 (320) ITR 561 (SC) CIT Vs. 13. One other recent judgment referred by the learned counsel for the appellant reported in 2010 (320) ITR 561 (SC) CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Limited, reiterate the aforesaid proposition of law. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Section 147 does not give arbitrary power to Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment on the basis of mere change of opinion being having no power of review. Relevant extract from the judgment of Kelvinator of India (supra) is reproduced below: "However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words "reason to believe" failing which, we are afraid, section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain pre-conditions and if the concept of "change of opinion" is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of "change of opinion" as an in-built rest to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. Hence, after 1st April, 1989, the Assessing Officer has power to reopen, provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief. Our view gets support from the changes made to section 147 of the Act, as quoted hereinabove. Under the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, Parliament not only deleted the words "reason to believe" but also inserted the word "opinion" in Section 147 of the Act. However, on receipt of representations from the companies against omission of the words "reason to believe", Parliament reintroduced the said expression and deleted the word "opinion" on the ground that it would vest arbitrary powers in the Assessing Officer. However, on receipt of representations from the companies against omission of the words "reason to believe", Parliament reintroduced the said expression and deleted the word "opinion" on the ground that it would vest arbitrary powers in the Assessing Officer. We quote hereinbelow the relevant portion of Circular No.549 dated October 31, 1989 ([1990] 182 ITR (St.) 1, 29), which reads as follows: "7.2 Amendment made by the Amending Act, 1989, to reintroduce the expression 'reason to believe' in section 147.- A number of representations were received against the omission of the words 'reason to believe' from section 147 and their substitution by the 'opinion' of the Assessing Officer. It was pointed out that the meaning of the expression, 'reason to believe' had been explained in a number of court rulings in the past and was well settled and its omission from section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen past assessments on mere change of opinion. To allay these fears, the Amending Act, 1989, has again amended section 147 to reintroduce the expression 'has reason to believe' in place of the words 'for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, is of the opinion'. Other provisions of the new section 147, however, remain the same." 14. In the present case, merely because signatures on certain confirmatory letters were not tallying with the original one came into notice of Assessing Officer that too does not relate to the Assessment Year in question, does not seems to make out a case to proceed with reassessment under the garb of escape liability. In view of the above, appeals succeed and are allowed. Question answered against revenue in favour of assess. No costs.