JUDGMENT This appeal by Revenue under section 260A of Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), challenges order dated June 22, 2012, passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). This appeal relates to assessment year 2005-06. following questions of law have been proposed by appellant-Revenue for our consideration: "(A) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in cancelling reassessment order passed under section 147 and holding same as bad in law? (B) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in holding that it was case of change of opinion when Assessing Officer had not expressed any opinion during regular assessment proceeding? (C) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in holding that issue of notice under section 148 after issue of notice under section 154 is bad in law?" respondent-assessee had filed return of income for assessment year 2005-06 declaring total income of Rs. 83.34 lakhs. Assessing Officer, during assessment proceedings, inquired of respondentassessee details of its bad debts and also justification for same. respondent- assessee filed detailed chart as called for indicating therein, inter alia, that amount of Rs. 1.35 crores is outstanding loan with M/s. LA Cream Finance Ltd. Assessing Officer being satisfied with justification of bad debts made by respondent-assessee and passed assessment order on December 12, 2007, assessing respondentassessee to income of Rs. 1.12 crores. This without disturbing bad debts claimed. Thereafter, notice dated November 24, 2009, was issued by Assessing Officer seeking to rectify assessment order dated December 12, 2007. rectification was on basis that amount of Rs. 1.35 crores written off as bad debts was in fact capital loss and could not be considered to determine income. respondent-assessee objected to notice. However, Assessing Officer has not yet passed any order on notice issued under section 154 of Act. Pending disposal of rectification notice under section 154 of Act, Assessing Officer on July 1, 2010, issued notice under section 148 of Act seeking to reopen assessment for assessment year 2005-06. reasons as recorded at time of issuing reopening notice are handed across Bar by Mr. Chhotaray, learned counsel for Revenue are as under: "On perusal of assessment records relating to assessment year 2005-06, following discrepancy has been noted: 'The assessment of M/s. Jet Speed Audio Pvt. Ltd. for assessment year 2005-06 was completed after scrutiny in December, 2007, determining Rs. 1,12,87,910 income. assessee-company has debited to profit and loss account of relevant previous year on account of Rs. 1,50,59,720 as debt. assessee has written off loan amounting to Rs. 1,35,00,000 which was includes in bad debts. Since expenditure incurred was capital loss it should have been treated as capital loss and needs to be added back to taxable income. Omission to do so has resulted in underassessment of income of Rs. 1,35,00,000.' In view of above, I have reasons to believe that income has been underassessed in so far as written off loan amounting to Rs. 1,35,00,000 which was included in bad debts for assessment year 2005-06. Proceedings under section 147 is initiated by issuing of notice under section 148." respondent objected to reopening notice under section 148 of Act. However, without prejudice respondent also submitted on merits that as they were principally in money-lending business, they were entitled to write off of loan of Rs. 1.35 crores. Assessing Officer did not accept respondent's objection both on reopening as well as on merits and passed order under section 143 read with section 147 of Act on December 21, 2010, and assessing petitioner to income of Rs. 2.47 crores. In appeal, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld order of Assessing Officer both on reopening notice under section 148 of Act as well as addition of Rs. 1.35 crores by treating same as capital loss and not as bad debts. On further appeal, Tribunal by impugned order allowed respondent-assessee's appeal on following grounds: "(a) At time of original assessment proceedings specific query was raised by Assessing Officer with regard to claim for bad debts as same was responded to by respondent. Assessing Officer being satisfied concluded assessment by order dated December 12, 2007. Thus, reopening notice is based on mere change of opinion and, therefore, not valid; (b) No tangible material has been brought on record to indicate necessity for change of opinion; and (c) As notice under section 154 of Act for rectification was yet awaiting disposal, notice for reopening under section 148 is bad in law." Questions (A) and (B) grievance of Revenue with regard to impugned order so far as change of opinion is concerned, is that Assessing Officer had acted upon on audit objection which has been received by him. Thus, there was tangible material available for issuing notice for reopening of assessment. It is further submitted that merely because Assessing Officer does not deal with particular issue in original assessment proceedings, it would not prohibit Revenue from issuing reopening notice, otherwise provisions of section 147 and section 148 would be rendered redundant. Mr. Chhotaray, learned counsel for Revenue, relied upon various decisions including decision of Supreme Court in case of Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC), decision of Delhi High Court in case of New Light Trading Co. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 391, and decision of this court in case of Dr. Amin's Pathology Laboratory v. P. N. Prasad, Joint CIT (No. 1) [2001] 252 ITR 673 (Bom). We find that impugned order of Tribunal has rendered finding of fact on basis of material before it, in particular fact that during original assessment proceedings query was made with regard to same issue which was responded to by respondent-assessee and on satisfaction of same, Assessing Officer had passed assessment order. Therefore, reopening of assessment on issue in respect of which query was raised and responded to by assessee would amount to change of opinion. tangible material being urged before us by Mr. Chhotaray, is audit objections received by Assessing Officer. However, as would be clear from reasons reproduced hereinabove, there is no mention of any tangible material in reasons recorded for issuing reopening notice under section 148 of Act. Thus, we find no fault with findings of Tribunal that there is no tangible material mentioned in reasons recorded by Revenue which would warrant different opinion being taken then which was taken when original order of assessment was passed. It is settled position in law that reopening notice can be sustained only on basis of grounds mentioned in reasons recorded. It is not open to Revenue to add and/or supplement later reasons recorded at time of issuing reopening notice. Mr. Chhotaray, learned counsel for Revenue urged on merits of Revenue's case to charge Rs. 1.34 crores allowed as bad debts, has to be appropriately brought to tax as capital loss. We pointed out to Mr. Chhotaray, learned counsel for Revenue, that scope of present proceedings is only with regard to reopening notice under section 148 of Act and we are not dealing with merits of assessibility of income alleged to have escaped assessment. On this Mr. Chhotaray submitted that issue which he seeks to urge is that merely because Assessing Officer has been careless in bringing to tax particular amount which is chargeable to tax, Revenue should not be precluded from issuing notice under section 148 of Act. This submission of Mr. Chhotaray overlooks facts that power to reopen is not power to review assessment order. At time of passing assessment order, it expected assessment order. At time of passing assessment order, it expected of Assessing Officer that he will apply mind and pass order. assessment order is not mere scrap of paper. To accept submission of Mr. Chhotaray, would mean to negate well settled position in law as stated by Supreme Court in case CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) [FB] that concept of "change of opinion" brought in so as to have in- built test to check abuse of power. In view of above, we find no substance in submissions raised by Mr. Chhotaray. decisions cited by Mr. Chhotaray, learned counsel on behalf of Revenue, in support of his submissions that oversight in passing assessment order will give Assessing Officer jurisdiction to issue notice, placed heavy reliance upon case Kalyanji Mavji and Co. (supra). However, on above aspect it has been held to be no longer good law by subsequent decision of Supreme Court in case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 (SC) wherein Supreme Court has observed thus (page 1004): "Now, in case before us, Income-tax Officer had, when he made original assessment, considered provisions of sections 9 [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC). and 10. Any different view taken by him afterwards on application of those provisions would amount to change of opinion on material already considered by him. Revenue contends that it is open to him to do so, and on that basis to reopen assessment under section 147(b). Reliance is placed on Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC), where Bench of two learned judges of this court observed that case where income had escaped assessment due to the'oversight, inadvertence or mistake' of Income-tax Officer must fall within section 34(1)(b) of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It appears to us, with respect that proposition is stated too widely and travels farther than statute warrants in so far as it can be said to lay down that if, on reappraising material considered by him during original assessment, Income-tax Officer discovers that he has committed error in consequence of which income has escaped assessment, it is open to him to reopen assessment. In our opinion, error discovered on reconsideration of same material (and no more) does not give him that power. That was view taken by this court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC) and we do not believe that law has since taken different course. Any observations in Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) suggesting contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down correct law." (emphasis supplied) aforesaid view on above proposition has been reiterated by apex court in A. L. A. Firm v. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 285 (SC) wherein court held that change of opinion where opinion was formed earlier does not give Assessing Officer jurisdiction to reopen assessment. apex court, inter alia, on above issue held as under (page 298): "Even making allowances for this limitation placed on observations in Kalyanji Mavji [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) position as summarised by High Court in following words represents, in our view correct position in law (at page 629 of 102 ITR): 'The result of these decisions is that statute does not require that information must be extraneous to record. It is enough if material on basis of which reassessment proceedings are sought to be initiated, came to notice of Income-tax Officer subsequent to original assessment. If Income-tax Officer had considered and formed opinion on said material in original assessment itself then he would be powerless to start proceedings for reassessment. Where, however Income-tax Officer had not considered material and subsequently came by material from record itself, then such case would fall within scope of section 147(b) of Act.' " (emphasis supplied) decision of Delhi High Court in case New Light Trading Co. (supra) does not indicate what reasons were recorded for issuing notice of reopening therein. In present case, reasons as recorded by Assessing Officer and reproduced hereinabove clearly indicate that there was no tangible material adverting to reasons recorded for issuing reopening notice. Similarly, decision of this court in case Dr. Amin's Pathology Laboratory (supra), it has been observed that if any item has escaped from assessment which otherwise is includible within assessment and Assessing Officer notices it subsequently by his own investigation or by reason of some information received by him, one cannot say that it constitutes change of opinion. In present facts during original proceedings itself this issue was investigated by Assessing Officer by raising specific query with regard to bad debts of Rs. 1.35 crores. Consequently, this is not case where this information has been noticed by Assessing Officer subsequently in assessment proceedings. In view of above, in our opinion, none of three decisions are applicable in present facts. In view of above, questions (A) and (B) as raised by Revenue for our consideration do not give rise to any substantial questions of law as findings of Tribunal that there has been change of opinion in issuing impugned notice, is finding based on facts and same has not been shown to be perverse. Accordingly, questions (A) and (B) are dismissed. So far as question (C) is concerned, this court has admitted identical issue in Income Tax Appeal No. 268 of 2013 (CIT v. Yasmin Texturing Pvt. Ltd.) as well as in Income Tax Appeal No. 1011 of 2011 (CIT v. Mahinder Freight Carriers) rendered on January 28, 2013. However, admission of this question would be academic as on merits of reopening, we have found no fault with impugned order of Tribunal. Accordingly, we see no reason to entertain question (C) as proposed by Revenue. Accordingly, question (C) is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jet Speed Audio P. Ltd