Reopening under section 147 fails where second reassessment relies on identical material already examined and finalised.

Second reassessment under section 147 was held without jurisdiction because it relied on the same investigation material, alleged accommodation-entry information, parties and purchase figures already examined in the earlier reassessment. In the absence of any fresh tangible material, section 147 could not be used to review an earlier conclusion on identical facts. As the issue had already been adjudicated through the appellate hierarchy and had attained finality, the provisory restrictions to section 147 barred reopening the same matter again. The allegation of failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts also failed because the basis of reopening had already been available and considered earlier.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second reassessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid when it was based on the same material as the earlier reassessment, despite the issue having already been examined and carried through the appellate hierarchy.

Analysis: The second reopening rested on the very same investigation material, the same alleged accommodation-entry information, the same parties and the same purchase figures as in the first round. No fresh tangible material had emerged after completion of the earlier reassessment. The reassessment power under section 147 requires reason to believe founded on new material and cannot be used to review an earlier conclusion on identical facts. Once the issue had already been adjudicated and given effect to through the appellate process, the matter had attained finality, and the provisory restrictions to section 147 barred reopening of the same issue again. The allegation of failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts also failed because the very basis of reopening had already been available and examined in the earlier round.

Conclusion: The second reassessment was without jurisdiction and was rightly quashed. The reopening was invalid, and the assessee succeeded on the jurisdictional challenge.

---