Change of opinion bars reassessment when the same claim was already examined and no fresh tangible material emerged.

Reassessment under section 147 was treated as impermissible where the original scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) had already examined the same expenditure claim and no fresh tangible material had emerged. The majority view was that reopening on the basis of the existing record amounted to a mere change of opinion, which cannot justify reassessment unless new material has a live link to the belief that income escaped assessment. On that reasoning, the reopening was held invalid and void ab initio. A dissenting view considered that relevant aspects had been overlooked in the original assessment and that the recorded reasons were supported by material, so the reopening was valid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment initiated under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid when the original assessment under section 143(3) had been completed after inquiry into the very same claim and no fresh tangible material had emerged.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment initiated under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid when the original assessment under section 143(3) had been completed after inquiry into the very same claim and no fresh tangible material had emerged.

Analysis: The original assessment record showed that the Assessing Officer had specifically queried the allowability of the Vision Software expenditure and the assessee had furnished a detailed reply. On the majority view, the material already on record had been considered during the scrutiny assessment, and reopening on the same material amounted only to a change of opinion. Reassessment could not be sustained merely because the earlier view was later found to be erroneous, unless there was fresh tangible material having a live link with the belief that income had escaped assessment.

Conclusion: The reassessment was invalid and void ab initio, and the reopening was held to be bad in law.

Dissenting Opinion: The Accountant Member held that the Assessing Officer had overlooked relevant aspects in the original assessment and that the reasons recorded were based on relevant material, so the reopening under section 147 was valid.

---