Even when we are debating on the subject of the jurisdiction of the AO for procedural changes brought by FA 2021 here comes a decision from the Madras High Court reported at  18 ITR-OL 53 (Mad) which has redefined escapement of income excessively to the advantage of the revenue.
The Court by this judgement rules that if any aspect escapes the attention of the AO during assessment it would give him the power to reopen. This may eventually mean that the AO can sidestep the change of opinion bottleneck by claiming to have missed out on certain aspects.
One the judgement holds that the word “escape” implies that it is not only materials that were not adjudicated during the original assessment but the materials adjudicated and certain aspects escaped from assessment during such original assessment.
Two it further holds that the word “new” does not mean that there is an impediment to cull out new facts from the information or materials provided by the assessee at the time of the original assessment.
It also adds that the source of information may be irrelevant for the purpose of initiation of proceedings under section 147. In this case, the assessee has claimed a loss of Rs. 53,34,895 on the transfer of shares from trading to investment and further, therefore, the reopening is made at the instance of the deptt auditors pointing that the company has taken loan from a financial institution and purchased shares for Rs. 165.19 lakhs, which were treated as long-term investments. However, no interest disallowance has been considered and the petitioner claiming that the audit report cannot be a source for initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act.
Though one may call this instance a matter of change of opinion yet by this judgment this is just one aspect that is lost sight of by the AO which therefore entitles him to revisit the completed case.
Thus if we go by this decision the AO having taken a conscious decision of making enquiry in original assessment for a claim for deduction say under chapter Vi-A may turn around later and claim that certain aspects of the deduction made were not considered by him and may recompute deduction.