ORDER : AKIL KURESHI, J. The petitioner has challenged a notice dated 30.03.2011 issued by the respondent-Assessing Officer to reopen the petitioner's assessment for the assessment year 2004-05. 2. Brief facts are as under: The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. For the assessment year 2004-05, the petitioner had filed a return of income on 01.11.2004 declaring ‘Nil’ income after claiming deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ for short]. The Assessing Officer selected the case for scrutiny. The assessment order was passed on 08.11.2006, in which, the Assessing Officer restricted the petitioner's claim for exemption under Section 80HHC of the Act to Rs.4.54 lacs instead of Rs.16.22 lacs claimed by the petitioner. To reopen such scrutiny assessment, the impugned notice came to be issued beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer had recorded following reasons for issuing the notice: “The return of income for the A.Y 2004-05 under consideration, declaring a toal income of Rs. NIL was filed by the assessee company on 01-11-2004. Assessment in the case was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 08-11-2006, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.11,67,900 restricting the deduction u/s. 80HHC at Rs. 4,54,428/- instead of Rs.16,22,353/- claimed by the assessee. The information received from Assistant Director of Income Tax (inv.) Unit-III, Surat that during investigations pertaining to a TEP against Jugal M. Biyani and Rajesh R. Bansal, it was found that there is an allegation against M/s. Biyani Impex Pvt. Ltd. of claiming undue rebates from Central Excise Department. The matter is being followed up with the Central Excise Authotieis to obtain information on this issue. It is alleged that the Director of the company Biyani Impex Pvt. Ltd. Shri. Rajesh Rameshwardayal Bansal and Jugal Mahendra Biyani claimed rebate of crores of Rs. And after coming in light stopped working for the period A.Y 2004-05. In view of the above facts, the undersigned has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for A.Y 2004-05 within the meaning of section 147 of the Act and the undersigned is satisfied that this is a fit case for issue of notice u/s. 148 of the I.T Act.” 3. In view of the above facts, the undersigned has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for A.Y 2004-05 within the meaning of section 147 of the Act and the undersigned is satisfied that this is a fit case for issue of notice u/s. 148 of the I.T Act.” 3. Upon being supplied such reasons, the petitioner raised objections under letter dated 23.05.2011 The Assessing Officer, however, rejected such objections by an order dated 25.06.2011 The petitioner, thereupon, raised further objections under letter dated 19.07.2011 and, thereafter, filed the present petition. 4. Taking us through the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no material on record on the basis of which, the Assessing Officer can form a belief that income of the petitioner-company chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and, further that such escapement of income was due to failure on part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. Counsel contended that mere report of the investigation wing of the department would not be such information. The Assessing Officer, without verifying the contents of the report, had merely issued the notice through a borrowed satisfaction. Counsel submitted that the contents of the order of the Assessing Officer disposing of the objection and the affidavit-in-reply filed in the present petition would reveal that the notice for reopening has been issued for a fishing inquiry without there being any material which would enable the Assessing Officer to form a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Sudhir Mehta opposed the petition contending that the report of the investigation wing would reveal that two of the directors of the petitioner-company had indulged into large scale excise duty evasion and fraud, in claiming rebates by creating bogus companies. The Assessing Officer having considered such material, recorded his independent reasons and issued the notice for reopening. 6. We have also perused the original file made available by the counsel for the Revenue. We may refer to the materials on record in context of the submissions made by the counsel for the parties. In the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer has referred to the information received from the investigation wing. 6. We have also perused the original file made available by the counsel for the Revenue. We may refer to the materials on record in context of the submissions made by the counsel for the parties. In the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer has referred to the information received from the investigation wing. In the report, it was pointed out that the investigation was carried out on a private complaint against the directors of the petitioner-company. It was found that there are allegations against the company of claiming undue rebates from Central Exercise department. The matter was being followed up with the Central Exercise Authority to obtain information on the issue. The allegations were that the directors of the company had claimed rebate of crores of rupees and after coming to light, stopped such activity. From the original file, we no tice that the same contains a copy of a complaint from a private individual whose identity presumably for the purpose of confidentiality has been withheld by blanking out the reference of the sender of the letter. This undated letter, which is written to the Director General of Investigation, Ahmedabad, seems to have been inwarded in the department on 05.03.2008 In such letter, the informant has made serious allegations against Shri. Jugal Biyani and Shri. Rajesh Bansal, two of the directors of the petitioner-company. The allegations include irregularities and declaration of stock of grey fabrics in import of natural silk. These allegations, however, are in connection with the companies other than the present petitioner. Insofar as the petitioner-company is concerned, this letter suggests that the said two persons have floated many firms, have earned undisclosed income by way of claiming rebate from the Excise Department. An annexure to this complaint contained list of such companies and nature of fraud which includes a reference to the present petitioner. 7. Under letter dated 28.03.2011, the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.) brought this letter to the notice of present respondent by conveying as under: “Sir. Sub: Forwarding of Extracts of TEP against M/s. Biyani Impex Pvt. Ltd. in case of TEP received against Shri. Rajesh Bansal and Shri. Jugal M. Biyani of Surat-reg. 7. Under letter dated 28.03.2011, the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.) brought this letter to the notice of present respondent by conveying as under: “Sir. Sub: Forwarding of Extracts of TEP against M/s. Biyani Impex Pvt. Ltd. in case of TEP received against Shri. Rajesh Bansal and Shri. Jugal M. Biyani of Surat-reg. It is to bring to your notice that during investigations pertaining to a TEP against Jugal M. Biyani and Rajesh R. Bansal, it was found that there is an allegation against M/s. Biyani Impex Pvt. Ltd. of claiming undue rebates from Central Excise Department. The matter is being followed up with the Central Excise Authorities to obtain information on this issue. Meanwhile, however, the relevant extracts of the TEP are being forwarded to you so that you may consider taking action, if any deemed necessary for AY 2004-05, u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at your end in this regard. The time limit for issuing notice u/s. 148 expires on 31.03.2011” 8. Along with this letter, he also annexed a copy of the aforesaid complaint by the undisclosed person. In this letter thus, the Assistant Director conveyed to the respondent that during investigation pertaining to the said complaint, it was found that there are allegations against the petitioner-company of claiming undue rebates from the Central Excise department and the matter is being followed up with the Central Excise authorities to obtain information on the issue. However, since the issuance of notice for reopening was getting time barred on 31.03.2011, he suggested to the Assessing Officer to take prompt action. It was pursuant to this communication that the Assessing Officer recorded reasons and issued the impugned notice on 30.03.2011 9. For several reasons, the notice cannot be sustained. Firstly, what the Assistant Director communicated to the Assessing Officer in the present case was a private complaint making serious allegations of fraud and financial irregularities against the directors of the petitoner-company. Such allegations by itself would not make a valid ground to reopen the assessment unless coupled with some further reliable material. If the investigation wing had carried out any inquiry after receipt of such a private complaint, the contents thereof are not on record before us and at any rate, never brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer. Before the Assessing Officer there were only two documents. If the investigation wing had carried out any inquiry after receipt of such a private complaint, the contents thereof are not on record before us and at any rate, never brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer. Before the Assessing Officer there were only two documents. First was the said undated complaint inwarded in the department on 05.03.2008 and second was the covering letter of the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investigation Wing) dated 28.03.2011 along with which the said private complaint was annexed. As noted, a private complaint without any further investigation by the authorities surely not be a tangible material to enable the Assessing authority to form a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Letter of Assistant Director (Investigation) also did not contain any further material regarding the allegations made by the complainant. In the said letter, he merely brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer that during investigation in connection with the said complaint against Shri. Jugal M. Biyani and Shri. Rajesh R. Bansal, it was found that there were allegations of the assessee-company having claimed undue rebates from the Central Excise department. This letter was addressed on 28.03.2011 Notice under Section 148 of the Act was getting time barred on 31.03.2011 The Assessing Officer was, therefore, under time pressure. He mechanically issued the notice for reopening relying on these two documents. Neither of these two documents co. ntained any material rearding the irregularities of the assessee-company. The complaint contained allegations of a private citizen. The letter of the Assistant Director contained no further information on the issue of reliability of the allegations made in the complaint. Though this letter referred to some findings concerning the assessee during the investigation into the complaint, no such material was placed at the disposal of the Assessing Officer. 10. Had the private complaint along with material collected by the investigation wing while examining the allegations contained in the complaint before the Assessing Officer, who after applying his mind to such material collected by the another wing of the department, satisfied himself that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, the issue would have rested on different ground. In the present case, the Assessing Officer had no such material before him. He merely accepted the suggestion of the investigation wing that the assessee company had indulged in excise duty evasion. In the present case, the Assessing Officer had no such material before him. He merely accepted the suggestion of the investigation wing that the assessee company had indulged in excise duty evasion. This is not even a case of the Assessing Officer having borrowed the satisfaction of the investigation wing. This is a case where the Assessing Officer has acted mechanically while issuing the notice for reopening the assessment. To reiterate, before the Assessing Officer there was no material whatsoever which would even prima faciesuggest that the assessee had committed irregularities which led to under assessment of income tax. 11. Whatever doubt one may have, would be further clear from the tenure of the post notice pleadings by the Assessing Officer. For example, while disposing of the petitioner's objection by an order dated 25.06.2011, the Assessing Officer noted that certain points require verification, for which, no reliable evidence was submitted by the assessee along with the reply. One of the points mentioned was as under: “Hence, the information which is in the possession of the Department is not on any guess work or presumption, and a detailed verification in this regard is absolutely appropriate to find possibility of escapement of income in the particular year.” 12. While concluding, he further observed that: “From the above, it is evident that in order to verify the correctness of the income/profit of the business before arriving at the quantum of reduction allowable as claimed, requires examination of books of accounts and other related documents relevant to it. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the assessee had not mentioned a single decision of case laws which support the contention placed that the reopening proceedings initiated u/s. 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act are bad in law and void ab initio.” 13. In this order also therefore, the Assessing Officer stressed the need to verify the accounts of the assessee. In the affidavit in reply filed in this petition also, similar stand was taken by the Assessing Officer while stating that ‘on basis of said information, the detail verification in this regard is absolutely necessary to find out the possibility of escapement of income for the assessment year 2004-05. In the affidavit in reply filed in this petition also, similar stand was taken by the Assessing Officer while stating that ‘on basis of said information, the detail verification in this regard is absolutely necessary to find out the possibility of escapement of income for the assessment year 2004-05. There is a possibility of a nexus between the petitioner, its directors and other firms to systematically earn hidden income by claiming rebate from the Central Excise Department and evade their liability to pay income tax. 14. All along therefore, the Assessing Officer desired to reopen the assessment to verify whether there had been evasion of tax, surely a purpose for which, the power of reopening cannot be resorted to. 15. In the result, impugned notice dated 30.03.2011 is quashed. Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.