Change of opinion in tax revision cannot sustain a second assessment where no fresh material exists.

A second revision of assessment based on the same scrutiny material already available at the time of the original assessment and the earlier revision was not permissible, because no fresh material existed to justify reopening. Reliance on the same returns and records amounted to a mere change of opinion, and the dealer's objections were not properly considered, showing non-application of mind. On that basis, the impugned assessment order was liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second revision of assessment was sustainable when it was based on the same scrutiny material already available at the time of the original assessment and the earlier revision, without any fresh material.

Analysis: The assessment for the relevant year had already been completed once and revised earlier. The impugned proceedings were again founded on scrutiny of the same returns and records, which were available at the stage of the original deemed assessment as well as the earlier revision. In the absence of new or fresh material, a further revision based only on the same material amounted to a mere change of opinion. The record also showed that the objections filed by the dealer were not properly considered, leading to non-application of mind.

Conclusion: The second revision of assessment was unsustainable and the impugned assessment order was liable to be quashed.

---