Change of opinion cannot justify reassessment where share premium valuation was already examined on full disclosure.

Where share premium valuation had already been specifically examined in scrutiny assessment and the assessee had disclosed the relevant valuation material fully and truly, reopening could not rest on a mere reappreciation of the same record. Reassessment requires fresh tangible material and cannot be used to review an issue already considered in the original assessment. On those facts, the reopening notice and the order rejecting objections were invalid, and the reassessment proceedings were quashed in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings could be sustained when the issue of share premium valuation had already been examined in the original scrutiny assessment and there was no failure to disclose material facts fully and truly or any tangible material justifying reopening.

Analysis: The reasons recorded for reopening rested on the valuation of share premium received by the assessee and alleged escapement of income under the provisions governing income from other sources and reassessment. The valuation method adopted by the assessee had already been specifically queried during the scrutiny assessment, and the assessee had furnished replies and valuation material, including the method permitted under the applicable rules. In these circumstances, the reopening was based on a reappreciation of the same material and could not be justified as an independent basis for reassessment. Reassessment under the law requires tangible material and cannot be used as a substitute for review or to revisit an issue already considered in the original assessment.

Conclusion: The reopening was invalid. The challenge to the notice and the order rejecting objections succeeded, and the reassessment proceedings were quashed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment could not be reopened on the facts found, because the requisite jurisdictional conditions for reassessment were not satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a valuation issue has been examined in scrutiny assessment and the assessee has made full disclosure, reassessment cannot be founded on mere change of opinion without fresh tangible material.

---