Reassessment based on change of opinion is invalid where reopening lacks fresh information under the surtax law.

Reassessment under section 8(b) of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 was valid only if the Income-tax Officer had post-assessment information satisfying the statutory precondition for reopening. On the facts, the reopening rested on a different view of the same material already examined in the original assessment and the first reassessment, with no fresh external information, no change in law, and no new factual material. A mere second thought or change of opinion could not amount to information conferring jurisdiction to reopen. The reassessment proceedings were therefore not validly initiated, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under section 8(b) of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, on the footing that the Income-tax Officer had information justifying reopening.

Analysis: Reopening under section 8(b) was permissible only if the statutory precondition of information in the Income-tax Officer's possession was satisfied. On the record, the later reassessment was founded merely on a different view of the same materials already considered in the original assessment and the first reassessment. No fresh external information, no change in law, and no new factual material was shown to have come into existence after the earlier orders. A mere second thought or change of opinion could not constitute information for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction to reopen.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were not validly initiated and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment under section 8(b) can be sustained only on the basis of post-assessment information that satisfies the statutory condition precedent, and not on a mere change of opinion on the same material.

---