No. Reassessment is a power to reassess, not a power to review, and a fresh view on material already considered is a change of opinion which cannot support reopening. There must be tangible material coming from outside the concluded assessment.
When an assessment is completed after scrutiny, the officer is taken to have applied his mind to the material on record. If he later looks at the same material and forms a different opinion, reopening on that basis is a review dressed up as a reassessment. The Supreme Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. put it as a distinction between the power to review and the power to reassess: the Act gives the officer only the latter, and the change of opinion doctrine is an in-built test to check abuse of power.
What the doctrine requires is tangible material. The officer must be able to point to something that was not part of the completed assessment — new facts, information from an external source, a subsequent finding — and show a live link between that material and the belief that income escaped assessment. Reopening supported only by a re-reading of the return, the audit report, or a note already on the assessment file does not clear that bar.
The doctrine does not depend on the earlier order having discussed the issue. That is where most disputes arise. Where a query was raised in the original scrutiny and the assessee answered it, the officer is treated as having formed an opinion even if the order is silent on the point, because he did not disturb what was explained. That is why the original questionnaire and your replies to it are the key documents in a change of opinion argument.
The doctrine also has limits. It presupposes a concluded assessment in which an opinion could have been formed. Where the return was merely processed and no scrutiny assessment was made, there is no earlier opinion to change. And where the assessee did not disclose the material at all, the officer never had the opportunity to form a view on it.
Whether the doctrine survives the reassessment regime substituted by the Finance Act 2021 — which speaks of "information which suggests" escapement rather than "reason to believe" — is the live question. The better view taken in professional commentary is that it does survive, because it rests on the difference between review and reassessment rather than on the particular words of the old section, and because the safeguard exists to prevent arbitrary exercise of power. The Delhi High Court in Seema Gupta v. ITO entertained a change of opinion plea under the new regime and set aside the section 148A(d) order for fresh consideration, though without deciding the doctrinal question squarely.
In practice, run the argument alongside the "information" argument rather than instead of it. Show first that the material relied on was already before the officer in the original assessment, and second that it therefore is not information that "suggests" anything new. That way the point works under either formulation.
If you can show the point was examined in the original scrutiny, the reopening can be quashed without arguing the merits of the addition at all. This makes your original assessment file — the questionnaire, your replies and the annexures — the most valuable document in the reply. It also means you should press for the reopening to be decided as a preliminary issue rather than merged into the merits.
The only thing behind my reopening notice is the Valuation Officer's report. Is that enough?
My return was only processed under 143(1). Does that stop the department reopening it later?
I made unexplained investments after the close of my accounting year. Which year can the officer tax them in, and can he reopen an earlier year to do it?
My land was notified and an award was made under the Land Acquisition Act, but I thought the award was too low, negotiated a higher figure and executed a sale deed. The Assessing Officer now says that was a voluntary sale and denies s.10(37). Is he right?
How much am I actually required to disclose — and can they reopen because the officer drew the wrong conclusion?
The sanctioning authority just wrote 'yes' and signed. Is that a sanction?
A reassessment was done in between. Does the two-year clock for s.263 restart from it?
I placed all my primary facts before the officer and he dropped the proceedings. Can a later officer reopen the assessment because he takes a different view of those same facts?
Every page in this library links to what it was written from, so you can check it rather than take our word for it.