Reopening based on previously examined material is invalid; reassessment cannot be used as a review of concluded scrutiny.

Reopening under section 147 cannot stand where it is based on the same survey material, partner statement, investigation report and penny stock loss details already specifically called for and examined in the original scrutiny assessment under section 143(3). The record showed that notices, replies, demat statements, broker ledgers, contract notes, bank statements, volatility charts and the survey statement were all before the AO at the time of the original assessment, so the later action amounted to a mere review of a concluded assessment rather than reopening on fresh tangible material. The notice under section 148 and the reassessment were therefore invalid and quashed.

---

---

Issues: Validity of reopening under section 147 and notice under section 148 on the basis of the same material already examined in the original assessment.

Analysis: The reassessment was founded on the survey material, the partner's statement, the investigation report and the alleged penny stock loss in the same scrip that had already been specifically called for, furnished and examined during the original scrutiny assessment under section 143(3). The record showed repeated notices, detailed replies, demat statements, broker ledgers, contract notes, bank statements, volatility charts and the survey statement itself having been filed before completion of the original assessment. On those facts, the reopening did not rest on fresh tangible material but on a revisit of the very same material previously considered, which amounts to a prohibited review of a concluded assessment.

Conclusion: The reopening under section 147 and the notice under section 148 were invalid and were quashed. The reassessment order did not survive.

---