Reassessment on same material held to be a mere change of opinion, making the reopening invalid.

Reopening under section 147 was invalid where the original assessment had been completed under section 143(3), the alleged escapement was based on the same material already examined, and no fresh tangible material supported a new reason to believe. The Tribunal treated the reassessment as a mere change of opinion and noted that earlier rectification proceedings under section 154 had been withdrawn on the same basis, reinforcing the absence of a valid jurisdictional foundation. The reassessment notice was therefore held bad in law, and the addition did not survive.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment initiated under section 148 was valid where the original assessment had already been completed under section 143(3), the reopening was based on the same material, and the earlier rectification proceedings had been withdrawn on the same basis.

Analysis: The original assessment had been completed under section 143(3), and the assessee had already disallowed a part of the transport expenditure. The reopening was founded on the same factual basis that had earlier been examined, without any separate or fresh tangible material. The Tribunal treated the action as a mere change of opinion and held that such a basis cannot sustain reopening under section 147. It also noted that the rectification proceedings under section 154 had been withdrawn on the same ground, reinforcing that the reassessment notice was not supported by a valid reason to believe that income had escaped assessment.

Conclusion: The reassessment was held to be invalid and bad in law, and the addition did not survive.

---