JUDGMENT : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tushar Hemani with learned advocate Ms. Vaibhavi K. Parikh for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun K. Patel for the respondents. 2. Having regard to the controversy involved in this petition, which is in a narrow compass, with the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, both the matters are taken up for final hearing. 3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior standing Counsel Mr. Varun K. Patel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. 4. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the notices dated 30th March, 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2016-17 and Assessment Year 2017-2018. 5.1 The brief case of the case are that the petitioner is a Company engaged in the business of trading of all types of bearings and its allied items. 5.2. The petitioner received the impugned notices. On receipt of the impugned notices, the assessee filed the return of income and also requested for the reasons recorded. The Assessing Officer provided the reasons recorded on 05.05.2021 for both the years. So far as Assessment Year 2016-17 is concerned the reasons recorded are as under: “As per the information received from the credible sources that a search action u/s. 132 of the Income tax Act, 1961 was carried in the case of Jignesh Shah and Sanjay Shah. During the course of search action various incriminating documents were found and seized from the premises of Shri Jignesh Shah and Sanjay Shah. It is further worth to mention here that, on going through the information available in Insight Portal, it can be seen that, Investing Wing, Ahmedabad during the investigation found that both Jignesh Shah and Sanjay Shah are managing and controlling multiple companies and concerns which are not carrying out any genuine business activity. These concerns are involved into activity of providing accommodation entries of various kinds such as unsecured loans, share premium, bogus gains, contrived losses etc. Further, as per Inspector Report, various concerns were found to be non-existent at their addresses. These concerns are involved into activity of providing accommodation entries of various kinds such as unsecured loans, share premium, bogus gains, contrived losses etc. Further, as per Inspector Report, various concerns were found to be non-existent at their addresses. Moreover, the directors of companies/persons in whose names the said concerns are registered, admitted by way of filing affidavits that the companies/concerns are not carrying out genuine business activities and are engaged into providing accommodation entries through Jignesh Shah and Sanjay Shah. On perusal of information so received from Investigation Wing, Ahmedabad, it is noticed that the assessee FILCO TRADE CENTRE PVT. LTD. (AAACF288N) is one of the beneficiaries who has availed/obtained accommodation entries to the tune of Rs. 6,90,006/- under various head from various concerns who has controlled and managed by Jignesh Shah and Sanjay Shah. As per the information received from the credible sources that an enquiry was made on the basis of STR which is generated on the basis of routing of high value of funds by receiving and making RTGS in the bank accounts of proprietorship concerns controlled by M/s. Mahavir Sales Corporation. The accounts are opened during the F.Y. 2012-13 to 2015-16 maintained with RBL Bank Ltd, Ahmedabad. On analysis of the bank statement of the above entities, it is seen that the entire funds credited by way of RTGS or by transfer got immediately debited by transfer or by clearing on the same day. The balance in the account is very low or Nil at the end of the day. On perusal of the bank statements and on the basis of field enquires, it is seen that the accounts were used for rotating funds/layering purpose, it is further important to mention that some entities have made shown purchases of various items (it is pertinent to mention here that various unrelated items were purchased from these entities like cement, pharmaceuticals raw materials, machinery, food items, textiles, marbles etc.) however, the assessee has failed to justify expediency of these transactions which were executed with various entities whom are engaged in various business activities. Investigation office has issued summons at the every address available with department and almost all the summons have been served. However, no response has been received from any of the proprietors. Investigation office has issued summons at the every address available with department and almost all the summons have been served. However, no response has been received from any of the proprietors. In view of the above, it is clear that these entities are paper concerns and engaged in providing accommodation entries to the various unrelated concerns. No underlying business activity has been carried out against the bank transactions made by these entities with various entities During the year, the assessee has entered into transactions amounting Rs. 99,77,271/- with M/s. Mahavir Sales Corporation which is indulge in providing accommodation entries with out carried out any real business activities. In view of the above paras, failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the materia facts necessary for the assessment the income of the assessee has escaped assessment to the tune of Rs. 1,06,67,277/- for the AY 2016-17 within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. I have, therefore, reason to believe that this is a fit case for reopening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act and for issue of if notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961” 5.3 For the Assessment Year 2017-18, the reasons recorded are as under: Issues as per reasons recorded for reopening As per the information received from the credible sources that Shri Chiragkumar B. Patel is in the business of providing accommodation entries to various persons/entities by way of transferring the funds through RTGS/internal fund transfer. Huge amount of funds have been routed through the account by receiving and making RTGS and internal fund transfer coupled transaction volume not matching with the declared profile/turnover of the customer and customer reluctant to provide details of the transactions in the account has given rise to suspicious. On carefully examining the information available in Insight Portal, it can be seen that, the entire funds credited by way of RTGS or by transfer got immediately debited by transfer or by clearing on the same day. The balance in the account is very low or NIL at the end of the day. On perusal of information so received from Investigation Wing, Ahmedabad, it is noticed that the assessee M/s. Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. (AAACF2884N) is one of the beneficiaries who has availed/obtained accommodation entries to the tune of Rs. The balance in the account is very low or NIL at the end of the day. On perusal of information so received from Investigation Wing, Ahmedabad, it is noticed that the assessee M/s. Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. (AAACF2884N) is one of the beneficiaries who has availed/obtained accommodation entries to the tune of Rs. 99,77,271/- from M/s. Mahavir Sales Corporation (ASTPP8307L) who has controlled and managed by Shri Chiragkumar B. Patel. Failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for the assessment, the income of the assessee has escaped assessment to the tune of Rs. 99,77,271/- for the AY 2017-18 within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. I have, therefore, reason to believe that this is a fit case for reopening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act and for issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961) 5.4 The petitioner filed the initial objections on 12.5.2021 requesting the respondent- Assessing Officer to provide (A) a copy of satisfaction note/approval memo of the competent authority (B) documents materials narrated in the reasons recorded. However, the Assessing Officer did not provide the details sought for by the petitioner. The petitioner therefore, filed the objections against the impugned notices on 05.06.2021 contending inter alia that the assessee has no transaction with Jignesh Shah and Sanjay Shah for the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2016-17 and the assessee also denied the allegations of transaction of Rs. 99,77,271/- with M/s. Mahavir Sales Corporation during the Financial Years 2015-16 and 2016-17, relevant for Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-2018. The petitioner denied that the receipt of the alleged accommodation entries from M/s. Mahavir Sales Corporation for both the years. 5.5 The respondent No. 2-Income Tax Officer, the National Faceless Assessment Centre passed an order dated 27.12.2021 disposing of the objections raised by the petitioner. 5.6. The opening paragraph of the objections order for Assessment Year 2016-17 reads as under: “In the instant case, the assessee M/s. Filco Trade Centre Private Ltd. filed return of income for the AY 2016-17 on 10-10-2016 declaring income of Rs. 93,32,480/-. The assessee’s return for the A.Y. 2016-17 was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5.6. The opening paragraph of the objections order for Assessment Year 2016-17 reads as under: “In the instant case, the assessee M/s. Filco Trade Centre Private Ltd. filed return of income for the AY 2016-17 on 10-10-2016 declaring income of Rs. 93,32,480/-. The assessee’s return for the A.Y. 2016-17 was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The DGIT(System), New Delhi had made data available in the assessee case that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries of taking accommodation entry of unsecured loan to tune of Rs. 1,06,67,277/- in the form of fictitious loan from Shri Jignesh Shah and Sanjay Shah to the tune of Rs. 6,90,006/- and Rs. 99,77,271/- from M/s. Mahavir Sales Corporation. As the details of transactions made available on ITBA was found to be correct, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021 was issued to the assessee, after following the due procedure and Notice under Section 148 was served upon the assessee.” 5.7 Whereas, the first paragraph of the objections order for Assessment Year 2017-2018 reads as under: In the instant case, the assessee M/s. FILCO Tram Centre Private Ltd., filed return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 29-10-2017 declaring income of Rs. 80,48,820/-. The assessee’s return for A.Y. 2017-18 was processed u/s. 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The assessment u/s. 143(3) was completed on 30.11.2019, determining a total income of Rs. 80,48,820/-. The DGIT (System), New Delhi had made data available in case of the assessee that it has obtained accommodation entry of Rs. 99,77,271/- from M/s Mahavir Sales Corporation who is controlled and managed by Shri Chiragkumar B. Patel. As the details of transactions made available on ITBA was found to be correct, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021 was issued to the assessee, after following the due procedure and Notice u/s. 148 was served upon the assessee. 5.8. On perusal of both the aforesaid preamble to the orders disposing the objections, it is apparent that for both the years, it is alleged that the petitioner obtained accommodation entries of Rs. 99,77,271/- from M/s. Mahavir Sales Corporation which is controlled and managed by Shri Chiragkumar B. Patel. 6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by preferring this petition. 7.1. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. 99,77,271/- from M/s. Mahavir Sales Corporation which is controlled and managed by Shri Chiragkumar B. Patel. 6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by preferring this petition. 7.1. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tushar Hemani for the petitioner submitted that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are containing inaccurate facts as the petitioner has denied any transaction either with Jignesh Shah and Sanjay Shah or with M/s. Mahavir Sales Corporation. It was further pointed out that the Assessing Officer has alleged accommodation entries of the same amount of Rs. 99,77,271/- with M/s. Mahavir Sales Corporation for both the Assessment Years. It was therefore, submitted that the Assessing Officer has recorded the reasons without application of mind only on the basis of the borrowed satisfaction as per the information made available in the inside portal which has no nexus with the facts of the case of the petitioner. It was submitted that though the petitioner has requested the respondent-Assessing Officer to provide him the details of the satisfaction note or the material and the documents which are relied upon for issuance of the impugned notices, however, no such information or documents were provided to the petitioner. 7.2 It was therefore, submitted that when the petitioner has not entered into any transactions with any of the parties referred into the reasons recorded, the mere allegations made by the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded without there being any prima facie nexus stated therein, the very foundation for reopening would be belied. 7.3 It was further submitted that the Assessing Officer while disposing of the objections raised by the petitioner has also not referred to any material which has formed the basis for making allegations of accommodation entry being availed by the petitioner. 7.4 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Hemani invited the attention of the Court to the response of the Assessing Officer in Para 5.12.1 in the order disposing of the objections in respect of the denial of the petitioner of having a transaction with the parties mentioned in the reasons recorded, to the effect that the Assessing Officer has stated that “whether or not the loan availed from Jignesh Shah and M/s. Mahavir Sales Corporation is bogus or not” is an issue of merit and shall be looked into only during the course of the assessment proceedings. 7.5 It was therefore, submitted that when the petitioner has denied any transactions with the parties mentioned in the reasons recorded, the verification of such transaction or whether the petitioner has entered into such transactions cannot be looked into at the time of reassessment as the Assessing Officer has failed to point out any prima facie material to link the information in his possession with the petitioner-assessee. 7.6 It was therefore, submitted that the entire reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are based upon the borrowed satisfaction and there is no prima facie opinion formed for escapement of income. It was therefore, submitted that the Assessing Officer cannot get the jurisdiction to reopen an assessment unless, he records his own independent satisfaction to the effect that the income chargeable to tax has actually escaped assessment and such satisfaction cannot be borrowed on the basis of the information availed by the Assessing Officer from the insight portal which in the facts of the case has been denied in toto by the petitioner. It was therefore, submitted that the respondent-Assessing Officer could not have assumed the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment as there is no material on record to show that the petitioner has entered into any transaction with the parties referred to in the reasons recorded. 7.7 On the other-hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Patel submitted that the Assessing Officer has stated inaccurate particulars in the reasons recorded qua the name of the parties i.e. Mahavir Sales Corporation instead of Vikram Enterprise and Maruti Enterprise which information is available in the insight portal. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Patel has referred to and relied upon the report which was available with the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment. It was submitted that there was inadvertent, involuntary error on the part of the Assessing Officer to refer to Mahavir Sales Corporation instead of Vikram Enterprise and Maruti Enterprise with whom the petitioner has entered into transactions of accommodation entry as per the information made available to the respondent-Assessing Officer. It was therefore submitted that merely recording of the wrong name of the parties in the reasons recorded cannot invalidate the reasons recorded when, there is a information made available with the Assessing Officer which can be considered at the time of reassessment proceedings. It was therefore submitted that merely recording of the wrong name of the parties in the reasons recorded cannot invalidate the reasons recorded when, there is a information made available with the Assessing Officer which can be considered at the time of reassessment proceedings. 7.8 With regard to the allegation of accommodation entry availed by the petitioner assessee from Jignesh Shah and Sanjay Shah for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is concerned, it was submitted that the Assessing Officer has alleged that the petitioner availed accommodation entry of Rs. 6,90,006/- on the basis of the information available. It was submitted that so far as Assessment Year 2017-18 is concerned, on the basis of the information, the Assessing Officer has recorded the satisfaction which will be considered and therefore, no interference is required to be made by this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7.9 In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Mehrunnisa Mohamed Fazal Maniar Vs. Income Tax Officer, (2021) 127 taxmann.com 547 (Gujarat) and the decision in case of Backbone Projects Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2021) 437 ITR 144 to submit that in case of accommodation entry from Jignesh Shah and Sanjay Shah, this Court has not entertained the petition challenging the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act in the facts of those cases.It was further submitted that similarly as the petitioner is alleged to have being beneficiary of accommodation entry from Jignesh Shah and Sanjay Shah as per the reasons recorded, no interference is required to be made by this Court in the impugned notices. 8.1 In the rejoinder,learned Senior Advocate Mr. Hemani for the petitioner submitted that no reliance can be placed on the material except what is stated in the reasons recorded. In support of his submission, the reliance was placed in the case of Kantibhai Dharamshibhai Narola Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2021) 436 ITR 302 (Guj) more particularly Para 32(1) wherein, it is observed as under: “32 (i) The Court should be guided by the reasons recorded for the reassessment and not by the reasons or explanation given by the Assessing Officer at a later stage in respect of the notice of reassessment. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2021) 436 ITR 302 (Guj) more particularly Para 32(1) wherein, it is observed as under: “32 (i) The Court should be guided by the reasons recorded for the reassessment and not by the reasons or explanation given by the Assessing Officer at a later stage in respect of the notice of reassessment. To put it in other words, having regard to the entire scheme and the purpose of the Act, the validity of the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 can be tested only by reference to the reasons recorded under Section 148(2) of the Act and the Assessing Officer is not authorized to refer to any other reason even if it can be otherwise inferred or gathered from the records. The Assessing Officer is confined to the recorded reasons to support the assumption of jurisdiction. He cannot record only some of the reasons and keep the others up to his sleeves to be disclosed before the Court if his action is ever challenged in a court of law.” 8.2 Referring to the above judgment, it was submitted that no reliance could have been placed by the learned advocate for the respondent-Assessing Officer upon the Information Report made available to the Assessing Officer and the legality and validity of the impugned notices is required to be considered only on the basis of the recorded reasons for assumption of the jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment for the years under consideration. 9. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering the facts of the case, it appears that the Assessing Officer has recorded the reasons based upon the information made available to him without application of mind. On perusal of the reasons recorded, it is apparent that the Assessing Officer has not referred to the nature of accommodation entry availed by the petitioner from Jignesh Shah and Sanjay Shah for Rs. 6,90,006/- for Assessment Year 2016-17 is concerned. Merely recording the facts from the information made available to the effect that the petitioner was beneficiary who has availed the accommodation entry to the tune of Rs. 6,90,0006/- cannot be said to be a reason having nexus with the material made available to the Assessing Officer for opening of the assessment. 6,90,006/- for Assessment Year 2016-17 is concerned. Merely recording the facts from the information made available to the effect that the petitioner was beneficiary who has availed the accommodation entry to the tune of Rs. 6,90,0006/- cannot be said to be a reason having nexus with the material made available to the Assessing Officer for opening of the assessment. In case of Mehrunnisa Mohamed Fazal Maniar (Supra) and the decision in case of Backbone Projects Ltd. (Supra) as well as the decision in case of Kantibhai Dharamshibhai Narola (Supra), the information was available with the Assessing Officer from the concern controlled by Jigesh Shah and Sanjay Shah from which the assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entry. It therefore, appears that in the facts of the case, the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are absolutely vague based upon the borrowed satisfaction and without application of mind. 9.1 With regard to the alleged accommodation entry from Mahavir Sales Corporation is concerned, the amount of Rs. 99,77,271/- is reflected in the reasons recorded for both the Assessment Years which clearly shows that there is non application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment on the basis of such information. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner-Assessee has requested forming the basis of the reasons recorded, however, the same was never provided. On the contrary, in the order disposing of the objections, the Assessing Officer has recorded that the petitioner availed the accommodation entry from Mahavir Sales Corporation which was denied by the petitioner in the objections. 9.2 We have perused the materials in form of report referred to and relied by the learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Patel wherein, the information which is relating to the assessee clearly shows that the assessee was beneficiary of the transactions with Vikram Enterprise and Maruti Enterprise. When a query was put to learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Patel as to whether such report was available with the Assessing Officer or not at the time of recording of reasons, it was submitted that such report was the basis for recording the reasons. However, for the reasons best known to the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer has recorded the incorrect particulars in the reasons recorded. Patel as to whether such report was available with the Assessing Officer or not at the time of recording of reasons, it was submitted that such report was the basis for recording the reasons. However, for the reasons best known to the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer has recorded the incorrect particulars in the reasons recorded. While passing the order of disposing the objections also, the correct information was not taken into consideration and the Assessing Officer who is faceless Assessing Officer of the National Faceless Assessment Centre has reiterated what is stated in the reasons recorded. Moreover, in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent also the report which is referred to and relied upon by learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Patel is not even whispered or stated. In the affidavit-in-reply, respondent has stated as under: (i) With reference to Para 3 to 3.3, it is submitted that regarding the assessee’s view that the reopening of assessment for A.Y. 2017-18 is bad in law, illegal, contrary to law and violation of the fundamental rights provided under Article 14, it is to mention that the assessment was re-opened after taking recourse to all administrative and legal procedures and after duly recording the reasons for which the case was reopened. As per the provisions of section 151 of the Act, the notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act has been issued within the power conferred as per law and as per the provisions of the section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, it cannot be said that notice u/s. 148 of the Act issued to the assessee is bad in law. The objection raised by the assessee is not acceptable as the Assessing Officer has reasonable belief that by omission on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, the income of the assessee has escaped assessment and such reason to believe has been provided to the assessee vide notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act dated 05.05.2021. On perusal of the information so received from Investigation Wing, Ahmedabad, it is noticed that M/s. Mahavir Sales Corporation (ASTPP8307L), controlled and managed by Shri Chiragkumar B. Patel has given accommodation entries of Rs. 99,77,271/- to the assessee M/s. Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. During the enquiry it is noticed that Shri Chiragkumar. On perusal of the information so received from Investigation Wing, Ahmedabad, it is noticed that M/s. Mahavir Sales Corporation (ASTPP8307L), controlled and managed by Shri Chiragkumar B. Patel has given accommodation entries of Rs. 99,77,271/- to the assessee M/s. Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. During the enquiry it is noticed that Shri Chiragkumar. B. Patel is in the activity of providing accommodation entries to various persons/entities by way of transferring funds through RTGS/Internal fund transfer. The entire fund credited by U of RTGS or by transfer got immediately debited by transfer or by clearing on the same day. The balance in the account is very low or Nil at the end of the day. The assessee company is one of the beneficiaries which has availed/obtained accommodation entries to the tune of Rs. 99,77,271/- from M/s. Mahavir Sales Corporation. From the above it is clear that M/s. Mahavir Sales Corporation is indulging in providing accommodation entries without carrying out any real business activities and the assessee is one of the entity who got the accommodation entries to the tune of Rs. 99,77,271/- without carrying out any real business activities. 9.3 Thus, even on the averments made on oath the respondent has reiterated that the petitioner has availed the accommodation entry from Mahavir Sales Corporation to the tune Rs. 99,77,271/- which is contrary to the facts available in the report referred to and relied upon by learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Patel. 9.4 We are therefore, in a helpless situation as we cannot refer to any other information which is made available to us while examining the legality and validity of the impugned notices under Section 148 of the Act other than the reasons recorded as held by this Court in case of Kantibhai Dharamshibhai Narola (Supra), wherein, this Court has laid down the following aspects with regard to the law of reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act which is well settled legal propositions wherein, it is held as under: 32. The law as regards the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Act 1961 is well-settled: (i) The Court should be guided by the reasons recorded for the reassessment and not by the reasons or explanation given by the Assessing Officer at a later stage in respect of the notice of reassessment. The law as regards the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Act 1961 is well-settled: (i) The Court should be guided by the reasons recorded for the reassessment and not by the reasons or explanation given by the Assessing Officer at a later stage in respect of the notice of reassessment. To put it in other words, having regard to the entire scheme and the purpose of the Act, the validity of the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 can be tested only by reference to the reasons recorded under Section 148(2) of the Act and the Assessing Officer is not authorized to refer to any other reason even if it can be otherwise inferred or gathered from the records. The Assessing Officer is confined to the recorded reasons to support the assumption of jurisdiction. He cannot record only some of the reasons and keep the others upto his sleeves to be disclosed before the Court if his action is ever challenged in a court of law. (ii) At the time of the commencement of the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has to see whether there is prima facie material, on the basis of which, the department would be justified in reopening the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at that stage. (iii) The validity of the reopening of the assessment shall have to be determined with reference to the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment. (iv) The basic requirement of law for reopening and assessment is application of mind by the Assessing Officer, to the materials produced prior to the reopening of the assessment, to conclude that he has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Unless that basic jurisdictional requirement is satisfied-a postmortem exercise of analysing the materials produced subsequent to the reopening will not make an inherently defective reassessment order valid. (v) The crucial link between the information made available to the Assessing Officer and the formation of the belief should be present. The reasons must be self evident, they must speak for themselves. (vi) The tangible material which forms the basis for the belief that income has escaped assessment must be evident from a reading of the reasons. The entire material need not be set out. The reasons must be self evident, they must speak for themselves. (vi) The tangible material which forms the basis for the belief that income has escaped assessment must be evident from a reading of the reasons. The entire material need not be set out. To put it in other words, something therein, which is critical to the formation of the belief must be referred to. Otherwise, the link would go missing. (vii) The reopening of assessment under Section 147 is a potent power and should not be lightly exercised. It certainly cannot be invoked casually or mechanically. (viii) If the original assessment is processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and not Section 143(3) of the Act, the proviso to Section 147 will not apply. In other words, although the reopening may be after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, yet it would not be necessary for the Assessing Officer to show that there was any failure to disclose fully or truly all the material facts necessary for the assessment. (ix) In order to assume jurisdiction under Section 147 where assessment has been made under sub-section (3) of section 143, two conditions are required to be satisfied: (i) The Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. (ii) Such escapement occurred by reason of failure on the part of the assessee either (a) to make a return of income under section 139 or in response to the notice issued under sub-section (1) of Section 142 or Section 148 or (b) to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for his assessment for that purpose. (x) The Assessing Officer, being a quasi judicial authority is expected to arrive at a subjective satisfaction independently on an objective criteria. (xi) While the report of the Investigation Wing might constitute the material, on the basis of which, the Assessing Officer forms the reasons to believe, the process of arriving at such satisfaction should not be a mere repetition of the report of the investigation. The reasons to believe must demonstrate some link between the tangible material and the formation of the belief or the reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment. The reasons to believe must demonstrate some link between the tangible material and the formation of the belief or the reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment. (xii) Merely because certain materials which is otherwise tangible and enables the Assessing Officer to form a belief that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, formed part of the original assessment record, per se would not bar the Assessing Officer from reopening the assessment on the basis of such material. The expression “tangible material” does not mean the material alien to the original record. (xiii) The order, disposing of objections or any counter affidavit filed during the writ proceedings before the Court cannot be substituted for the “reasons to believe.” (xiv) The decision to reopen the assessment on the basis of the report of the Investigation Wing cannot always be condemned or dubbed as a fishing or roving inquiry. The expression “reason to believe” appearing in Section 147 suggests that if the Income Tax Officer acts as a reasonable and prudent man on the basis of the information secured by him that there is a case for reopening, then Section 147 can well be pressed into service and the assessments be reopened. As a consequence of such reopening, certain other facts may come to light. There is no ban or any legal embargo under Section 147 for the Assessing Officer to take into consideration such facts which come to light either by discovery or by a fuller probe into the matter and reassess the assessee in detail if circumstances require. (xv) The test of jurisdiction under Section 143 of the Act is not the ultimate result of the inquiry but the test is whether the income tax officer entertained a “bona fide” belief upon the definite information presented before him. Power under this section cannot be exercised on mere rumours or suspicions. (xvi) The concept of “change of opinion” has been treated as a built in test to check abuse. If there is tangible material showing escapement of income, the same would be sufficient for reopening the assessment. (xvii) It is not necessary that the Income Tax Officer should hold a quasi judicial inquiry before acting under Section 147. It is enough if he on the information received believes in good faith that the assesee’s profits have escaped assessment or have been assessed at a low rate. (xvii) It is not necessary that the Income Tax Officer should hold a quasi judicial inquiry before acting under Section 147. It is enough if he on the information received believes in good faith that the assesee’s profits have escaped assessment or have been assessed at a low rate. However, nothing would preclude the Income Tax Officer from conducting any formal inquiry under Section 133(6) of the Act before proceeding for reassessment under Section 147 of the Act. (xviii) The “full and true” disclosure of the material facts would not include that material, which is to be used for testing the veracity of the particulars mentioned in the return. All such facts would be expected to be elicited by the Assessing Officer during the course of the assessment. The disclosure required only reference to those material facts, which if not disclosed, would not allow the Assessing Officer to make the necessary inquiries. (xix) The word “information” in Section 147 means “instruction or knowledge derived from the external source concerning the facts or particulars or as to the law relating to a matter bearing on the assessment. An information anonymous is information from unknown authorship but nonetheless in a given case, it may constitute information and not less an information though anonymous. This is now a recognized and accepted source for detection of large scale tax evasion. The non-disclosure of the source of the information, by itself, may not reduce the credibility of the information. There may be good and substantial reasons for such anonymous disclosure, but the real thing to be looked into is the nature of the information disclosed, whether it is a mere gossip, suspicion or rumour. If it is none of these, but a discovery of fresh facts or of new and important matters not present at the time of the assessment, which appears to be credible to an honest and rational mind leading to a scrutiny of facts indicating incorrect allowance of the expense, such disclosure would constitute information as contemplated in clause (b) of Section 147. (xx) The reasons recorded or the material available on record must have nexus to the subjective opinion formed by the A.O. regarding the escapement of the income but then, while recording the reasons for the belief formed, the A.O. is not required to finally ascertain the factum of escapement of the tax and it is sufficient that the A.O had cause or justification to know or suppose that the income had escaped assessment [vide Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd.’s case (supra)]. It is also well settled that the sufficiency and adequacy of the reasons which have led to the formation of a belief by the Assessing Officer that the income has escaped the assessment cannot be examined by the court. 35. The power to reopen a completed assessment under Section 147 of the Act 1961 has been bestowed on the Assessing Officer, if he has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. However, this belief that income has escaped assessment has to be the reasonable belief of the Assessing Officer himself and cannot be an opinion and/ or belief of some other authority. On the basis of the information by itself received from another agency, there cannot be any reassessment proceedings. However, upon receipt of the information/material received from other source, the Assessing Officer is required to consider the material on record in case of the assessee by applying his mind and thereafter is required to form an independent opinion on the basis of the material on record that the information has bearing on the income of the assessee and such income has escaped assessment. Without forming such an opinion, solely and mechanically relying upon the information received from other source, there cannot be any reassessment. It is also established principle of law that if a particular authority has been designated to record his/her satisfaction on any particular issue, then it is that authority alone who should apply his/her independent mind to record his/ her satisfaction and further mandatory condition is that the satisfaction recorded should be ‘independent’ and not ‘borrowed’ or ‘dictated’ satisfaction. Law in this regard is now well-settled. 36. Law in this regard is now well-settled. 36. The Supreme Court in the case of Anirudh Sinhji Karan Sinhji Jadeja vs. State of Gujarat, (1995) 5 SCC 302 as well has held that if a statutory authority has been vested with the jurisdiction, it has to exercise it according to its own discretion. If discretion is exercised under the direction or in compliance with some higher authorities instruction, then it will be a case of failure to exercise discretion altogether. The cases reopened on the basis of information received from the other departments are also governed by the aforesaid principle of making an independent inquiry and recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act. 37. A third party information is only an information and does not constitute ‘reason to believe’ until and unless the third party information is subjected to investigation and, on the basis thereof, independent reasons are recorded by the Assessing Officer before issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. 9.5 Considering the above conspectus of law, we are unable to look into the material referred to and relied upon by learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Patel to justify the reasons recorded so as to draw a presumption by us that the Assessing Officer has committed an error while recording the reasons and therefore, no interference is required to be made in the facts of the case. 9.6 Considering the material available on record in form of reasons recorded, we cannot travel beyond the same for the settled legal position that the Assessing Officer is required to confine to the reasons recorded for reopening and he is not authorized to refer to any other reason or fact even if it can be otherwise inferred or gathered from the record for the purpose of the validity of the assumption of the jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act. 10. In view of the foregoing reasons, both the petitions succeed and were accordingly allowed. The impugned notices dated 30th March, 2021 issued for the Assessment Year 2016-17, 2017-18 are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.