Reopening on a mere change of opinion is invalid when scrutiny assessment already examined the same material.

Reopening of assessment is invalid where the original scrutiny assessment was completed after examination of the relevant material and the reassessment is based on the same facts. The text states that alleged bogus purchases and disallowance of carry forward losses and depreciation after amalgamation were used to reopen the case, but the assessee had already furnished the amalgamation order, loss details and financial records during the original proceedings. In the absence of any new tangible material, the reopening amounted to a mere change of opinion. The reassessment was therefore treated as unsustainable and quashed in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reopening of assessment was valid when the original assessment had been completed after examination of the relevant material and the reassessment was founded on the same set of facts.

Analysis: The reassessment was initiated on two grounds, namely alleged bogus purchases and disallowance of carry forward losses and depreciation after amalgamation. The original assessment had been completed under scrutiny, and the assessee had already furnished the amalgamation order, the carry forward loss details, and the relevant financial records. On those facts, the reopening was held to rest on a mere change of opinion and not on any new tangible material. The reasoning also accepted that the statutory requirement is not satisfied by a review of the earlier view in the absence of material coming to light after completion of the original assessment.

Conclusion: The reopening of assessment was invalid and the reassessment was rightly quashed, in favour of the assessee.

---