Reassessment cannot rest on a mere change of opinion when no fresh material emerges from the original record.

Reassessment under section 147 was invalid where it rested on the same seized material and facts already examined in the original assessment. The original assessment had considered the property investment evidence and the assessee's explanation, and no fresh tangible material or new information emerged later. On those facts, reopening on a different view of the same record amounted to a mere change of opinion, which cannot justify reassessment. If the earlier assessment was considered erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, the appropriate remedy would have been proceedings under section 263 rather than reopening under section 147.

---

---

Issues: Whether reassessment under section 147 was valid when it was based on the same seized material already examined in the original assessment, or whether it amounted to a mere change of opinion.

Analysis: The original assessment had considered the seized material and the assessee's explanation regarding the property investments, and additions were made only after that examination. The reassessment was initiated on the same documents and facts, without any new tangible material or fresh information coming to light. In such circumstances, reopening cannot be justified merely because a later Assessing Officer takes a different view on the same record; the proper course, if the earlier assessment was believed to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, would be proceedings under section 263 rather than reassessment.

Conclusion: The reassessment was invalid as it was founded only on a change of opinion and not on new material; the assessee succeeded.

---