The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not to be considered by the court, and the Assessing Officer acquires jurisdiction to reopen an assessment if there is specific, reliable, and relevant information available to him.

MADAN B. LOKUR, J.

( 1 ) THE Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 30th November, 2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench SMC in ITA No. 5020/del02004 relevant for the assessment year 1996-97.

( 2 ) BY the impugned order, the Tribunal took the view that re-assessment proceedings carried out by the Assessing Officer in terms of Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) lacked in valid jurisdiction and were, therefore, liable to be set aside.

( 3 ) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, we admit this appeal and frame the following substantial question of law for consideration: "whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax act, 1961 was bad in law and, therefore, the assessment framed in pursuance thereof was liable to be quashed. "

( 4 ) FILING of paper books is dispensed with.

( 5 ) THE assessment was framed in respect of the assessee under Section 143 (3) of the Act read with Section 147 thereof on 29th March, 2004 By this assessment, an addition of Rs. 1,27,650/- was made to the assessee's income as a result of a finding that it represented the assessee's own unaccounted money which had been introduced in the garb of long term capital gains arising out of the sale of shares.

( 6 ) IT appears that the alleged sale of shares was carried out through a broker M/s Maheswari Sons whose proprietor was Shri Shankar Hari Maheswar. The broker appears to have admitted in a statement that he has not carried out any sale or purchase of shares.

( 7 ) ON these broad facts, the Assessing Officer recorded the following reasons for issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act for carrying out a re- assessment:

"information is received from the office of DDIT (Investigation) Gurgaon that investigation were conducted by that office with respect to bogus entries of long

term capital gain taken by some assessees from one bank account of M/s maheswari Sons, A/c No. 8627, Punjab National Bank, Karol Bagh, New Delh. It has come to light that beneficiaries have taken entries by paying in cash an amount equivalent to the draft/cheque amount and certain premium on that. No sale/purchase of shares has actually taken place. The operator of the said account Sh. Praveen Mittal has also admitted in his statement that bogus transactions relating to sale/purchase of shares were done through this bank account and most of the beneficiaries have availed relief u/s 54f of the. T. Act, 1961. Some of the beneficiaries like firm/company took capital losses to offset their business gains. The name of Shri Vipin Batra is included in the list of beneficiaries from the said account of M/s Maheswari Sons in the form of following transaction having received the said amount in his bank account no. 10007 with Syndicate Bank, Mori gate, Delh.

S. No . Date of taking entry Amount 1 27. 5. 95 1,27,650/-

There was a reason to believe that income of the assessee from undisclosed sources had escaped assessment in the form of bogus capital gain for AY 1996-97. "

( 8 ) IT is not necessary to go into the merits of the controversy because, as noted above, the Tribunal concluded that there was no specific information before the Assessing Officer entitling him to come to the conclusion that the transaction of long term capital gains was not genuine so as to constitute escapement of income. It was held that the assumption of jurisdiction was clearly flawed and, therefore, subsequent proceedings including the assessment framed were liable to be quashed.

( 9 ) WE are of the view that the opinion of the Tribunal is erroneous in law.

( 10 ) IN Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer and Ors. , (1999) 236 ITR 34, the Supreme Court held that what is required to be seen in a case such as this is whether prima facie there was some material before the Assessing officer on the basis of which he could reopen the case of the