ORDER : Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J. 1. Petitioner has challenged the notice for reopening of assessment which was previously accepted under Section 143(1) of the Act. 2. Brief facts are as under: The petitioner is a Director of the company. His principal source of income is salary. For the assessment year 2008-09, the petitioner filed his return of income disclosing the receipt of salary of Rs. 35,08,064/-. The department also issued intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer issued impugned notice dated 31.03.2015 seeking to reopen such assessment, for which, she had recorded the following reasons: "In this case, the assessee has not filed the Return of Income for the year under consideration. As per information generated from form 26AS of this circle, it is seen that assessee is one of the beneficiary recipient of the income in the nature of salary amounting to Rs. 36,00,000/- and during the year assessee has purchased immovable property of Rs. 70,00,000/- but no return of Income has been filed by the assessee. Therefore, it is prima facie evident that income in the nature of salary, amounting to Rs. 36,00,000/- as reflected in its form 26AS & for which no return of Income has been filed till date, has escaped assessment for assessment year under consideration in the spirit of provisions of section 147(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. I have reasons to believe that it is a fit case for reopening of the assessment by invoking the provisions of section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961." 3. The petitioner raised objections pointing out that the return of the income was actually filed, in which, the salary income was duly reflected. The reasons were, therefore, not valid. The Assessing Officer, however, rejected such objections by her order dated 04.08.2015. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reasons recorded for issuing notice that, no return was filed, was absolutely incorrect. The petitioner filed the return which fact even now respondent accepts. In the affidavit-in-reply, however, it is asserted that the assessee was required to file the return with the present respondent. Instead, he had filed such return before ITO Ward No. 4(2) which is re-numbered as Ward No. 2(1)(2) of Ahmedabad. In such affidavit, it is further stated that the assessee had also not disclosed the fact regarding the source of Rs. Instead, he had filed such return before ITO Ward No. 4(2) which is re-numbered as Ward No. 2(1)(2) of Ahmedabad. In such affidavit, it is further stated that the assessee had also not disclosed the fact regarding the source of Rs. 70 lacs and the income of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 5. Counsel submitted that the return was filed before the same authority where it was done in the earlier years. As per the then prevailing norms of filing tax returns manually, the department would accept the return of a Director only before the same authority where the company has filed the return. The reason, that no return was filed, therefore, was wholly erroneous. Even if the return was filed before the wrong authority, it would not become the non-est return or non return in eye of law. 6. On the other hand learned counsel Ms. Bhatt for the department submitted that, when the return was filed before the wrong authority, correct Assessing Officer had no occasion to apply her mind. The notice for re-opening is, therefore, valid. In any case, no scrutiny assessment was originally carried out. 7. To the assertion of the petitioner that the return was filed before the same authority where it was previously done and that the norms required the Director of the company to file the return before the same authority where company has to be assessed, there is no serious grounds raised by the respondent. Further, the return filed by the petitioner was acknowledged and intimation under sub-section (1) of Section 143 was issued. Such being the facts, it cannot be stated that the petitioner had filed no return. The very foundation for issuing notice, therefore, as recorded in the reasons, would be belied. Other than recording that no return was filed such reasons recorded that as per the Form 26AS, it was noticed that the petitioner has received salary income of Rs. 36 lacs and had also purchased immovable properties worth Rs. 70 lacs. 8. When the ground of non filing of the return disappears and as can be seen from the return, there was fully disclosure about the salary income of the petitioner, the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer become completely invalid. 36 lacs and had also purchased immovable properties worth Rs. 70 lacs. 8. When the ground of non filing of the return disappears and as can be seen from the return, there was fully disclosure about the salary income of the petitioner, the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer become completely invalid. Her attempt now to rope in the question of deemed dividend cannot be permitted since the validity must be judged on the basis of reasons recorded and not on the basis of extraneous material. 9. In the result, impugned notice is quashed. Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.