Reassessment beyond four years and change of opinion both bar reopening when full disclosure and prior examination are shown.

Reassessment beyond four years is invalid unless the recorded reasons expressly show that the assessee failed to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment; that statutory precondition was absent, so the reopening could not stand. Reopening was also impermissible because the same agreements and materials had already been examined in the original assessment, making the exercise a mere change of opinion. The notice under section 148 and all consequential proceedings were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment could be initiated beyond four years in the absence of any allegation that the assessee had failed to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment; (ii) whether reopening was invalid as a mere change of opinion where the same material had already been examined in the original assessment.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment could be initiated beyond four years in the absence of any allegation that the assessee had failed to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment.

Analysis: The reasons recorded for reopening did not contain any assertion that the assessee had failed to make a full and true disclosure of all primary facts. For reopening after the expiry of four years, that requirement is a jurisdictional condition under the first proviso to section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Conclusion: Reassessment beyond four years was not sustainable and was invalid for want of the statutory precondition.

Issue (ii): Whether reopening was invalid as a mere change of opinion where the same material had already been examined in the original assessment.

Analysis: The record showed that the agreements and other materials relied upon in the reasons had already been before the Assessing Officer during the original assessment proceedings and had been examined in detail. Reopening on the same material amounted to revisiting an issue already considered.

Conclusion: The reopening was also vitiated as a mere change of opinion.

Final Conclusion: The notice under section 148 and all proceedings based on it were quashed, and the writ petition succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment beyond four years is impermissible unless the recorded reasons expressly show failure by the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment, and reopening on previously examined material amounts to an invalid change of opinion.

---