JUDGMENT 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee and the following questions of law have been referred by the Tribunal for answer of this court : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding reassessment under Section 147(b) ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs was assessable under Section 69 ?" 2. The brief facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : The assessee is a registered-firm constituted by two brothers, Badri Prasad and Rameshwar Prasad, with equal shares. They are carrying on business at Katni as kachha aarti (commission agent) of grains. The assessee-firm follows Diwali year as the accounting year. The original assessment for the assessment year 1974-75 was made on October 30, 1975, by the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Katni. As against returned income of Rs. 38,680, the income was assessed at Rs. 39,830 after making some sundry additions. Earlier, the jurisdiction over the assessee's case was with the Income-tax Officer, C-Ward, Katni, who, on receipt of some information, had authorised survey under Section 133A of the Act by the inspectors deputed by him on January 15, 1974, who had found some loose sheets pertaining to the period October 28, 1973, to January 15, 1974 (falling in Diwali year 1973-74 relevant for the assessment year 1975-76). The inspectors had prepared a list of the said loose sheets and had also prepared copies of important loose sheets, and called the Income-tax Officer, C-Ward, Katni, to the shop as they apprehended that the said loose sheets would be snatched from them by the partners of the assessee-firm. The Income-tax Officer, C-Ward, Katni, had then visited the shop and recorded the statement of one of the partners, namely, Badri Prasad. The inventory prepared by the two inspectors was also signed by the two partners of the assessee-firm. Thereafter, the partners of the assessee-firm were called to the Income-tax Office but the partners did not comply with the said requisition and finally the assessee's case was transferred from the Income-tax Officer, C-Ward, Katni, to the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Katni, around January 22, 1974. Thereafter, the partners of the assessee-firm were called to the Income-tax Office but the partners did not comply with the said requisition and finally the assessee's case was transferred from the Income-tax Officer, C-Ward, Katni, to the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Katni, around January 22, 1974. After some time, an inspector was deputed by the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Katni, in June, 1978, to verify the transactions noted in the loose sheets by the inspectors in 1974 and the said inspector reported that the said transactions neither appeared in the assessee's account books nor in those of the various parties mentioned in the said loose sheets. The Income-tax Officer accordingly reopened the assessment for the assessment year 1974-75 under Section 147(b) by issuing notice dated March 23, 1979, to the assessee-firm and the assessee-firm filed a return in compliance therewith. Thereafter, the Income-tax Officer after considering the explanation of the assessee, made an addition of Rs. 4,98,774. Meanwhile, the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Katni, Shri C.P. Dubey was transferred and was succeeded by Shri O.P. Sinha who on receipt of the I. A. C.'s instructions under Section 144B, made the assessment on September 6, 1980, on an income of Rs. 5,38,600. 3. Thereafter, the assessee filed an appeal and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the aforesaid addition in principle, but reduced the quantum to Rs. 2,61,338 representing the peak credits by passing a detailed order. 4. Thereafter, the assessee approached the Tribunal who reduced the addition of Rs. 4,98,774 to Rs. 2 lakhs which was the amount received from the two partners at the rate of Rs. 1 lakh on October 28, 1973. The Tribunal further held that while the investment of Rs. 2 lakhs was made by the two partners in some business, which investment was assessable under Section 69, they had also taken some loans from others which appeared on the credit side in the loose sheets which funds had been advanced to the persons shown on the debit side in the loose sheets. The Tribunal, accordingly, held that only the investment of Rs. 2 lakhs received from the partners was assessable under Section 69 of the Act and as the investment was made in the financial year 1973-74, it was properly assessable in the assessment year 1974-75. The Tribunal, accordingly, held that only the investment of Rs. 2 lakhs received from the partners was assessable under Section 69 of the Act and as the investment was made in the financial year 1973-74, it was properly assessable in the assessment year 1974-75. Accordingly, the Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment under Section 147(b) and the Tribunal further held that the loose sheets were genuinely found in the assessee's premises and the income of the assessee assessable under Section 69 of the Act was Rs. 2 lakhs. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee moved an application for reference before the Tribunal and, accordingly, the Tribunal has referred the aforesaid questions for answer of this court. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel for the assessee, has strenuously urged before us that reopening of the assessment under Section 147(b) is without jurisdiction as the assessing authority had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment already made on the changed opinion. Therefore, learned counsel submits that the assessment could not be reopened on changed opinion. In support of that contention, learned counsel has invited our attention to Ram Kishan Oil Mills v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 186 (MP) ; Kamalchand v. ITO [1981] 128 ITR 290 (MP) ; Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) and Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 (SC). As against this, Shri Tankha, learned counsel for the Revenue, has invited our attention to CIT v. A Roman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC); Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 (SC) ; Claggett Brachi Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 177 ITR 409 (SC) and Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 456 (SC). 7. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties. It is a fact that the premises of the petitioner-assessee was raided and certain loose sheets were found and the assessee also admitted those loose sheets to be pertaining to his business and his explanation was that such loose sheets were kept as they were in connection with levy, etc. So far as the finding of loose sheets and keeping second account is concerned, the same is not disputed. So far as the finding of loose sheets and keeping second account is concerned, the same is not disputed. The question is whether this material was before the assessing authority or not at the time of the first assessment. The first assessment of the assessee for 1974-75 was done on October 30, 1975. At that time, only loose sheets were found showing the second account of the petitioner-assessee, but at that time full investigation into the matter had not been done. In 1978, June, the full investigation was undertaken and when the details were received from the inspector in 1978, it came to light, on verification of the relevant accounts, that the petitioner-assessee had kept the second account which was not accounted by him in his assessment. When this material came to the notice of the assessing authority, he issued a notice under Section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act on March 23, 1979, which was received by the assessee on March 26, 1979. In this background, the assessing authority has exercised jurisdiction to reopen the assessment already made. Learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that in fact all this material was before the assessing authority when the assessing authority passed the order on October 30, 1975, and it cannot be said that the material was not there. According to learned counsel, since the material was there it cannot be said to be a case where, the information has subsequently come to the notice of the assessing authority. In fact, from the fact which has come to notice it appears that at the time when the assessment order was made on October 30, 1975, the assessing authority was not in the possession of the full verified material so as to act upon them. It is only when certain material has been used by the assessing authority for the purpose of assessment and has acted upon that and passed the assessment order that with the same material the assessment cannot be reopened on account of change of opinion. If some material has not been acted upon by the assessing authority and it was not brought to the notice of the assessing authority, it cannot be said that the assessing authority had assessed the income on that basis. If some material has not been acted upon by the assessing authority and it was not brought to the notice of the assessing authority, it cannot be said that the assessing authority had assessed the income on that basis. Change of opinion will only mean that opinion was formed and it is being sought to be changed by the exercise of the power under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act. Where the assessing authority has not used the material and has not applied his mind and expressed the opinion, till that time, it cannot be said that there was a change of opinion formed by the assessing authority on the basis of material which was there. In the present case, the raid was conducted at the premises of the assessee and certain loose sheets were found, but the fate of those loose sheets remained in the fluid stage and it was not finalised till a final report was submitted by the inspectors after verifying the detailed accounts in 1978. By that time the assessment for 1974-75 was already done on October 30, 1975. Therefore, fully verified material was not in the possession of the assessing authority and it came as an information only after the report was submitted by the inspectors. Therefore, the assessing authority has rightly exercised jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 147 on receipt of the information from the inspectors in 1978. Suffice it to say that in CIT v. A. Roman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC), their Lordships of the Supreme Court have, in the matter of exercise of the power under Section 147{b), observed as under (headnote) : "Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to reassess income arises if he has in consequence of information in his possession reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. That information must, it is true, have come into the possession of the Income-tax Officer after the previous assessment but even if the information be such that it could have been obtained during the previous assessment from an investigation of the material on record, or the facts disclosed thereby, or from other enquiry or research into facts or law, but was not in fact obtained, the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer is not affected." 8. Thus, their Lordships in the above case have gone to the extent to say that if there is material on record which discloses that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to reassess the income is not affected and he will be within his power to act on that information even if it comes to light from the material which was with him but was not acted upon by him earlier. 9. The aforesaid judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court was reaffirmed in the case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 (SC), wherein their Lordships have observed (page 1004) : "That was the view taken by this court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC) ; CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC) and we do not believe that the law has since taken a different course." 10. Similar view has been reiterated by their Lordships in Claggett Brachi Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 177 ITR 409 (SC). In this case, it was observed as under (page 413) : "The reassessments were made with reference to Clause (b) of Section 147 of the Act, and apparently the Income-tax Officer proceeded on the basis that in consequence of information in his possession, he had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the two assessment years. From the material before us it appears that the Income-tax Officer came to realise that income had escaped assessment for the two assessment years when he was in the process of making assessment for a subsequent assessment year. While making that assessment, he came to know from the documents pertaining to that assessment that the overhead expenses related to the entire business including the business as commission agents and were not confined to the business of purchase and sale. It is true, as the High Court has observed, that this information could have been acquired by the Income-tax Officer if he had exercised due diligence at the time of the original assessment itself. It does not appear, however, that the attention of the Income-tax Officer was directed by anything before him to the fact that the overhead expenses related to the entire business. It does not appear, however, that the attention of the Income-tax Officer was directed by anything before him to the fact that the overhead expenses related to the entire business. The information derived by the Income-tax Officer evidently came into his possession when taking assessment proceedings for the subsequent year. In the circumstances, it cannot be doubted that the case falls within the terms of Clause (b) of Section 147 of the Act, and that, therefore, the High Court is right in holding against the assessee." 11. Thus, their Lordships have gone to the extent of holding that information derived in subsequent years on the basis of material which was already with the Assessing Officer at the time of making the original assessment also provides jurisdiction to the Assessing Officer to reassess the income under Section 147(b) of the Act. 12. Shri Tankha, learned counsel for the Revenue, invited our attention to the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 456. In that case, the assessee-firm was assessed to tax at Azamgarh (U. P.). In the returns for the assessment year 1963-64, the assessee claimed that it had borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000 in cash on interest from a Calcutta based company in May, 1962. Accepting the assessee-firm's claim that it borrowed money in cash from a finance company and paid interest thereon by cheque/draft till repayment in cash, deduction of interest was allowed by the Income-tax Officer. Later on, on receipt of information that the finance company was only a name-lender to cover up bogus transactions of loan to bring into books of account black money and it never gave any loan to the assessee and after cross-examining the managing director of the finance company on his confession to this effect, proceedings were initiated by the Income-tax Officer concerned for reopening the assessment on the ground of income escaped assessment. The reopening was challenged by the assessee and it was held by their Lordships that the Income-tax Officer was justified in reopening the assessment and it is immaterial that the Income-tax Officer could have when making the original assessment investigated the genuineness of the transaction. The reopening was challenged by the assessee and it was held by their Lordships that the Income-tax Officer was justified in reopening the assessment and it is immaterial that the Income-tax Officer could have when making the original assessment investigated the genuineness of the transaction. Therefore, it appears from the scheme of the things and the various decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court that Section 147(b) has been construed liberally that if it is found on the information subsequently received that there is an escape of income chargeable to tax, then the Income-tax Officer has the jurisdiction to issue notice for reopening of the assessment. 13. Learned counsel for the assessee also invited our attention to Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC) ; CIT v. Hemchandra Kar [1970] 77 ITR 1 (SC) and various other decisions. We need not refer to those cases because the cases which are relevant for our purpose have already been discussed above and after adverting to those decisions we are satisfied that in the present case, the Income-tax Officer has rightly reopened the assessment in the exercise of the power under Section 147(b) of the Act. Hence, we answer the first question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 14. The next question which arises is whether the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs which had been found on the loose sheets can be treated to be investment assessable under Section 69 of the Act. In this connection, it is sufficient to say that it has been observed by the Tribunal that this income was attributed to each of the partners, i.e., Rs. 1 lakh each, and the partners went in appeal against addition of this Rs. 1 lakh and they were successful in the appeal and they got the additions deleted. Therefore, once they have successfully got this addition of one lakh rupees in the share of each partner deleted in the appeal from the higher authorities under the Income-tax Act, then it follows that the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs can only be treated to he the investment of the assessee-firm, assessable under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, This amount was wrongly accounted for as belonging to the two partners because both the partners have successfully got the additions deleted in appeal. 2 lakhs can only be treated to he the investment of the assessee-firm, assessable under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, This amount was wrongly accounted for as belonging to the two partners because both the partners have successfully got the additions deleted in appeal. It only shows the assessee's attempt to evade, accounting of the amount which failed and it leaves no other option but to account for the amount in the investment account of the assessee. Therefore, this view taken by the Tribunal appears to be correct and we answer the question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 15. In the result, we answer both the questions in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reference is, accordingly, disposed of.