Change of opinion cannot justify reassessment where the same depreciation issues were already examined and no claim was made by the assessee.

Reassessment under Section 147(b) could not be sustained where depreciation and extra shift allowance had not been claimed by the assessee in the original assessment, because the revenue could not impose those allowances in reassessment. The reopening also rested on the same material already examined in the original assessment, so it amounted to a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible. The reassessment was therefore invalid on both merits and jurisdiction, and its cancellation was upheld in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether reassessment under Section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained for granting depreciation and extra shift allowance when those claims had not been made by the assessee in the original assessment and the reopening was based on the same set of facts.

Analysis: The reassessment was found unsustainable on two independent grounds. The assessee had not claimed depreciation or extra shift allowance, and it was held that the revenue could not impose those allowances on the assessee in reassessment. The original assessment had already dealt with depreciation and accepted the assessee's stand, so reopening on the same material amounted to a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible for action under Section 147(b).

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were invalid both on merits and on jurisdiction, and the cancellation of the reassessment was upheld in favour of the assessee.

---