Reassessment invalid for change of opinion and limitation bar where no fresh material supported reopening.

Reassessment was held unsustainable because it was founded on the same investigation-wing material regarding alleged bogus purchases that had already been examined in the original scrutiny assessment under section 143(3), with no fresh tangible material to justify reopening; the action was therefore treated as a prohibited change of opinion and borrowed satisfaction. The reassessment notice was also found to be beyond the surviving limitation period under the post-reform reassessment framework, and was consequently time-barred. On these jurisdictional defects, the reassessment could not be sustained and the merits of the additions were not adjudicated.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment was invalid for want of fresh tangible material and amounted to a prohibited change of opinion or borrowed satisfaction; (ii) Whether the reassessment notice was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment was invalid for want of fresh tangible material and amounted to a prohibited change of opinion or borrowed satisfaction.

Analysis: The reopening was founded on the same investigation-wing information regarding alleged bogus purchases that had already been considered in the original scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. No new material emerged to justify a second look at the concluded issue. Reopening on the identical factual foundation was therefore treated as a revisit of an already examined matter, which is impermissible in reassessment proceedings.

Conclusion: The reopening was invalid on account of borrowed satisfaction and change of opinion, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment notice was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The reassessment process was tested against the surviving period available under the post-reform reassessment framework. On the record, the fresh notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued after the last permissible date identified by the appellate authority and was therefore beyond the surviving period. The notice consequently failed the limitation test.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice was time-barred, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment could not be sustained on jurisdictional grounds, and the merits of the additions did not survive for adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment cannot be sustained where it is initiated on the same material already examined in the original assessment and the statutory notice is issued beyond the permissible limitation period.

---