1. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of selling hair care products, providing consultancy services and treatment in the hair care and beauty sector. It filed its return of income on 28-9-2012 declaring revenue of Rs. 37,02,86,962/- from the sale of products and Rs. 15,34,79,584/- from the provision of services. The return of income was processed and intimation under section 143(1) was issued.
 

2. Subsequently, the assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment, a notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act”) was issued where the details of the advertisement expenses were sought. The assessee provided all the documents as required by the Assessing Officer (“A.O.”). The assessment order was passed on 12-11-2014 under section 143(3) of the IT Act accepting the return of income.
 

3. Thereafter, on 29-3-2019 assessment was sought to be reopened in case of assessee on grounds that advertisement and marketing expenditure incurred by assessee were not deductible in view of provisions of section 37(1) of the IT Act.
 

4. The said disallowance was made because the assessee was prohibited from advertising under the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 read with Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002. Section 37(1) of the IT Act provides any expenditure incurred for a purpose which is an offence, or which is prohibited by law shall not be allowed. The objections filed by assessee against reopening the case were also rejected.
 

5. In the facts of the present case, in view of the order passed on 12-11-2014, it is clear that the A.O. in the original assessment was aware of the issue of expenses incurred on advertisement and marketing by the assessee.
 

6. It was held by the Bombay High Court that when the primary facts necessary for assessment are fully and truly disclosed, the A.O. is not entitled to a change of opinion for commencing proceedings for reassessment. It was also held that when on consideration of the material on record, one view was conclusively taken by the A.O., it would not be appropriate for the A.O. to reopen the assessment based on the very same material and to take another view.
 

7. The A.O. had no power to review the assessment which had already been concluded unless there is any tangible material to conclude that there has been an escapement of income. Thus, the re-assessment notice was set aside on grounds of “change of opinion”.