"30. Having held so, we need to consider as to whether the reassessment was validly done. The Tribunal held in favour of the assessee stating that the reassessment was bad in law. To decide this issue, we may straightaway refer to the decision in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd., wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that post 01.04.1999, the power to reopen was much wider and that however, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words ?"reason to believe"?, failing which, Section 147 of the Act would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment on the basis of ?"mere change of opinion"?, which cannot be, per se, reason to reopen. It was pointed out that there is a conceptual difference between the power to review and power to reassess, that the Assessing Officer has no power to review, that he has the power to reassess and that reassessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain pre-conditions and if the concept ?"change of opinion"? is removed, then in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place. It was held that the concept of "?change of opinion"? should be treated as in-built test to check the abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. Thus, it was held that after 01.04.1999, the Assessing Officer has power to reopen provided there is ?"tangible material"? to come to the conclusion that there is an escapement of income from assessment and reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief.
