Reassessment by change of opinion fails when reopening revisits an issue already decided, and writ relief remains available.

Writ jurisdiction was held maintainable despite statutory appeal remedies because the challenge went to reassessment proceedings said to be without jurisdiction and contrary to settled reopening procedure. Reassessment under sections 147 and 148 must rest on a bona fide reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, and objections must be disposed of by a speaking order. As the recorded reasons merely revisited an issue already decided in the assessee's favour by the Tribunal for the same years, the reopening was treated as a change of opinion and procedurally defective. The HC therefore quashed the reopening and assessment orders as unsustainable in law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions were maintainable despite the availability of statutory appeals against the reassessment orders; (ii) Whether the reassessment proceedings and consequential orders were vitiated as a case of change of opinion and for failure to follow the prescribed procedure in reopening.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions were maintainable despite the availability of statutory appeals against the reassessment orders.

Analysis: The reassessment proceedings related to the same assessment years in respect of which the assessee had already succeeded before the Tribunal. The challenge was not to an ordinary assessment order alone, but to reopening proceedings that were stated to be without jurisdiction and contrary to settled procedure. In these circumstances, the existence of an appellate remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment proceedings and consequential orders were vitiated as a case of change of opinion and for failure to follow the prescribed procedure in reopening.

Analysis: Reopening under sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 must rest on a bona fide reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, and the assessing officer was also required to dispose of objections by a speaking order in terms of the reopening procedure. The reasons recorded merely rephrased an issue already considered in the assessee's favour by the Tribunal for the same years. Judicial discipline required the assessing officer to follow the Tribunal's binding view unless reversed. The reassessment was therefore founded on a change of opinion and suffered from procedural illegality in the reopening process.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were invalid and the impugned orders were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned reopening and assessment orders were quashed, and relief was granted to the assessee on the ground that the reassessment was impermissible in law.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment cannot be sustained when it merely reopens an issue already concluded on the same facts for the same assessment year, and objections to reopening must be decided by a speaking order following the prescribed procedure.

---