A second round of reopening of assessment on the ground that assessee had made bogus purchases and making addition to the extent of 100% of such purchases was bad in law, when there was already a first round of reassessment proceedings for the same issue of bogus purchases wherein the AO made addition to the extent of 9%. The second round of reopening was thus held to be based on a change of opinion since the same material in the form of investigation report was being relied on by the AO.

Also, since in the first round of reassessment proceedings, the matter had reached the CIT (A) and thereafter the ITAT, the second round of reassessment proceedings could not be sustained as this was barred by the proviso to section 147.

The ITAT also relied on the doctrine of finality as the issue regarding bogus purchases and the addition on the basis of the same had attained finality with the order of the ITAT in the first round of reassessment. Thus, the second round of reassessment proceedings were held to be wholly without jurisdiction.