14. Now, in the case before us, the Income-tax Officer had,
when he made the original assessment, considered the provisions
of Sections 9 and 10. Any different view taken by him afterwards
on application of those provisions would amount to a change of
opinion on material already considered by him. The Revenue
contends that it is open to him to do so, and on that basis to
reopen the assessment under Section 147 (b). Reliance is placed
on Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT, (1976) 102 ITR 287, where a
Bench of learned Judges of this Court observed that a case where
income had escaped assessment due to the “oversight,
inadvertence or mistake” of the Income-tax Officer must fall
within Section 34 (1) (b) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. It
appears to us, with respect, that the proposition is stated too
widely and travels further than the statute warrants insofar as it
can be said to lay down that if, on reappraising the material
considered by him during the original assessment, the ITO
discovers that he has committed an error in consequence of which
income has escaped assessment, it is open to him to reopen the
assessment. In our opinion, an error discovered on a
reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give
him that power. That was the view taken by this Court in Maharaj
Kamal Kumar Singh’s case (supra), A. Raman and Co.’s case
(supra) and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT, (1971) 82 ITR 831, and we
do not believe that the law has since taken a different course. Any
observations in Kalyanji Mavji’s case (supra) suggesting the
contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law.
