Reassessment based on a mere change of opinion fails when the original scrutiny already examined the same deduction claim.

The Bombay HC held that reassessment could not be sustained where the deduction claim had already been specifically examined in the original scrutiny assessment and the reopening rested on the same material flagged differently by audit. The CSR-related donations were disclosed, queried, supported by documents, and considered in the completed assessment, with only a minor disallowance made. In the absence of fresh tangible material, the later reopening amounted to a mere change of opinion and could not justify reassessment. The impugned notice, reassessment order, and consequential notice were quashed, and the writ petition succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings could be sustained when the deduction under Section 80G had already been examined and allowed in the original scrutiny assessment and the reopening was founded on an audit objection on the same material.

Analysis: The original assessment showed that the deduction claim had been specifically scrutinised through queries, responses, and supporting documents. The relevant CSR-related donations were disclosed in the return, examined during assessment, and only a minor disallowance was made. The reassessment was initiated on the very same material after the audit wing expressed a different view. Reassessment cannot be used to review or re-examine material already considered in the original assessment, and the absence of any fresh tangible material meant the reopening was based only on a different opinion on the same facts.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were invalid as they amounted to a mere change of opinion. The impugned notice, order, and consequential notice were quashed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the reassessment action was set aside because the jurisdictional precondition for reopening was not met.

Ratio Decidendi: A concluded assessment cannot be reopened on the same material merely because the Revenue later adopts a different view, and an audit objection by itself does not justify reassessment without fresh tangible material.

---