Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers v CIT

Facts

• The assessee filed its return which was processed under S.143(1) (summary processing, no scrutiny)
• No assessment order under S.143(3) was passed
• The AO subsequently issued notice under S.148 seeking to reopen
• The assessee challenged the reopening arguing change of opinion
• The case raised the question of different standards for reopening depending on original processing mode

Issues

1. Whether the "change of opinion" bar applies when the original return was only processed under S.143(1) (no scrutiny)
2. What is the threshold for "reason to believe" when no assessment was made

Held

• Processing under S.143(1) involves no application of mind; no assessment is made, and no opinion is formed
• The bar against "change of opinion" applies only when there was an original opinion (i.e., under S.143(3) scrutiny)
• For S.143(1) processed cases, the AO needs only "reason to believe" based on available material
• The threshold is lower because reopening is not displacing any prior considered view
• Notice under S.148 valid

Ratio Decidendi

S.143(1) is a mechanical computation step, not an assessment. No judicial or quasi-judicial mind is applied. Therefore, no "opinion" exists to change. The protection against change-of-opinion reopening is available only to assessees who underwent scrutiny (S.143(3)), where the AO demonstrably considered and formed a view.