In a recent judgment (2009 -TMI - 33584 - DELHI HIGH COURT), honorable High Court of Delhi held that,

4. We think it appropriate to advert to M/s. Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT, Bombay City II, Bombay, AIR 1980 SC 2117 which lays down that once the basic or primary facts have been disclosed, the burden to prove that amounts represents undisclosed income of the assessee is on the Revenue. Applying all these precedents to the case before us, we find it difficult to come to any conclusion other than that the case in hand represents those genre of cases in which there has been a change of opinion. One of the tests prescribed in Techspan was to investigate whether any new material had come to the notice of the officer concerned which material would constitute "reason to believe". This new material is wholly missing in the case in hand. Our study would become more comprehensive with the mention of CIT vs. P.V.S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd., [2008 -TMI - 5725 - SUPREME Court]. In that case, the internal audit party had pointed out that the Trust to which donations had been made by the assessee did not qualify for deduction under Section 80G as the recognition had expired. Their Lordships considered this to be sufficient reason for reopening of the case; the new material obviously was in the form of the Audit Report.

5. On the strength of this analysis, we are of the opinion that there was no new material in the hands of the Revenue leading to the view that there was reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. Instead, the case is a classic instance of a change of opinion. Consequently, the Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned Notice vide dated 26.3.2007 under Section 148 of the Act is quashed.

For full text of judgment visit: 2009 -TMI - 33584 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Burden of proof in reassessment: Revenue must produce new material showing reason to believe income escaped. Once the basic or primary facts have been disclosed, the onus lies on the Revenue to prove that amounts represent undisclosed income; a mere change of opinion does not justify reopening-there must be new material constituting a reason to believe that income escaped assessment.