Reassessment beyond four years requires full disclosure failure; reopening on later case law alone is a mere change of opinion.

A reassessment notice issued after four years was treated as invalid where the assessee had disclosed the service income, deduction basis and supporting material in the original return, audit report and computation. The court noted that the Assessing Officer had already examined the Section 80HHC claim, so the proviso to Section 147 was not met because there was no failure to fully and truly disclose material facts. Reopening based only on a later Supreme Court ruling supplied no fresh tangible material and amounted to an impermissible review or mere change of opinion. The reassessment proceedings were therefore held to be without jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment notice issued beyond four years under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid when the assessee had disclosed the material facts relating to the claim under Section 80HHC, and whether reopening based on a later judicial decision amounted to a mere change of opinion.

Analysis: The return, accompanying audit report and computation disclosed the service income and the basis of the deduction claim. The assessing authority had already examined the claim in the original assessment. In the absence of any failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, the proviso to Section 147 was not satisfied. Reopening founded only on the subsequent Supreme Court decision did not supply fresh tangible material and would amount to a review of the earlier assessment, which is impermissible. The jurisdictional requirement for reassessment after four years was therefore not met.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were invalid, and the revenue's appeals failed. The issue is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessment completed under Section 143(3) is sought to be reopened after four years, the Assessing Officer must show failure by the assessee to make a full and true disclosure of material facts; reopening on a mere change of opinion or on the basis of a later judicial pronouncement is without jurisdiction.

---