Allowing the petition the Court held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were on the basis of material which was available with the Assessing Officer during the course of the original scrutiny assessment proceedings and  were not based on any fresh or new tangible material but on a new opinion being formed on the legal provisions. The reply affidavit did not state that the reopening of the assessment for the assessment year 2014-2015 was on the basis of fresh tangible materials, which later on had come to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer and which did not form part of the original assessment proceedings under section 143(3). The contention of the Department, that since the assessment was reopened within the period of four years, the materials which were already available before the Assessing Officer and considered in passing an assessment order under section 143(3) could form the basis of reopening of the assessment on the ground that such materials were ignored in finalising the original assessment, could not be accepted in view of the settled position in law. Unless there was fresh material available with the Assessing Officer to disturb the reasoning which had gone into in finalising the original assessment under section 143(3), the Assessing Officer would not have jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under section 147.(AY. 2014-15)