Reassessment beyond four years upheld where full and true disclosure of primary facts was absent and fresh material existed.

Reassessment beyond four years under the Income-tax Act is valid only if the statutory conditions for reopening are met, including the proviso to section 147 read with section 149. The assessee must disclose fully and truly all primary facts necessary for assessment; merely filing books or general material is not enough. Where the record did not show disclosure of primary facts relevant to the section 80-I claim, and later information supplied the basis for the Assessing Officer's belief that income had escaped assessment, the reopening was treated as founded on fresh material and not on a mere change of opinion. The reassessment notices were therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment notices issued beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment years were valid, and whether the reassessment was barred as a mere change of opinion in the absence of full and true disclosure of primary facts by the assessee.

Analysis: The condition in the proviso to section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, applies when reassessment is initiated after the expiry of four years, and it must be read along with the time and monetary limits in section 149 of the same Act. A notice under section 148 cannot be sustained unless the statutory requirements for reopening are satisfied. The duty of the assessee is to disclose fully and truly all primary facts necessary for assessment; production of books or general materials does not by itself establish such disclosure. On the assessment record, the Court found no indication that the primary facts relevant to the claim under section 80-I had been placed before the Assessing Officer in the original years, whereas the assessment for 1989-90 supplied information bearing on the allowability of the deduction and furnished the basis for the officer's belief that income had escaped assessment. In these circumstances, the reopening was founded on fresh information and not on a mere change of opinion.

Conclusion: The reassessment notices were held to be valid and not vitiated by any infirmity; the challenge by the assessee failed.

Final Conclusion: Reopening after four years was upheld because the assessee had not shown full and true disclosure of primary facts, and the information later gathered provided a lawful basis for action under the reassessment provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: For reopening an assessment beyond four years, the assessee must have fully and truly disclosed all primary facts necessary for assessment, and reassessment is permissible when the later action is based on relevant information that was not before the Assessing Officer earlier, rather than on a mere change of opinion.

---