Reassessment invalid for change of opinion where prior scrutiny had already examined the deduction claim and Form 10DA filing.

Reassessment under section 148 was held invalid where the original section 143(3) assessments had already examined the section 80JJAA deduction, Form 10DA, and manufacturing s. The Court found that later survey material based on a subsequent year's trial balance was not tangible material to reopen earlier completed assessments, and that comparing later unaudited figures with prior years did not create a lawful basis for reassessment. It also held that the objection about non-electronic filing of Form 10DA could not justify reopening, as the issue had not been raised in the original scrutiny proceedings and reopening on that ground amounted to a change of opinion. The notices and orders disposing of objections were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment notices under section 148 and the orders disposing of objections were valid when the original assessments under section 143(3) had already examined the deduction under section 80JJAA and the manufacturing expenses, and whether the survey material and the alleged non-electronic filing of Form 10DA furnished valid grounds to reopen the assessments for the two assessment years.

Analysis: The original assessments had been completed under section 143(3) after scrutiny of the petitioner's returns, audit report, financial statements, Form 10DA, and details of manufacturing expenses. The reasons for reopening rested on two bases: material found during a later survey, and the alleged failure to file Form 10DA electronically. The Court held that the survey material, drawn from a later year's trial balance, could not constitute tangible material for reopening the earlier completed assessments, and that comparing later unaudited figures with earlier assessed years did not supply a lawful foundation for reassessment. It further held that the electronic-filing objection did not justify reopening because the matter had not been raised during the original assessments and the reopening on that basis amounted to a change of opinion. On the record, the reassessment was treated as an attempt to revisit matters already examined and to correct an earlier perceived mistake, which is not permissible under reassessment jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were invalid and the impugned notices and objection-disposal orders were set aside in favour of the assessee.

---