Reassessment on change of opinion is barred, but limited reopening can survive on an unexamined deduction issue.

Reassessment cannot be founded on a mere change of opinion where the assessee fully disclosed the primary facts and the exchange-loss claim was already examined in the original assessments; reopening on that ground was therefore without jurisdiction. A separate enquiry into head office expenses and service charges was permissible because that ceiling issue had not been examined earlier, so the notice could stand only to that limited extent. A later writ challenge to the 1970-71 reassessment, including gratuity disallowance, was declined because of delay and the availability of statutory appellate remedies, leaving those matters to the tax authorities.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment notices could validly reopen the concluded assessments on the ground that loss on exchange, already disclosed and examined in the original assessments, had escaped assessment for want of full and true disclosure; (ii) Whether the notices could be sustained to the extent they proposed enquiry into deductions for head office expenses and service charges allegedly exceeding the remittance ceilings indicated in the Government letters dated 4 May 1973 and 6 November 1974; (iii) Whether the later challenge to the reassessment proceedings for the 1970-71 year, including the gratuity disallowance, warranted interference in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment notices could validly reopen the concluded assessments on the ground that loss on exchange, already disclosed and examined in the original assessments, had escaped assessment for want of full and true disclosure.

Analysis: The exchange-loss claim had been consistently disclosed year after year, was within the knowledge of the Income-tax Officer, and had been expressly considered in the earlier assessments. In the relevant earlier year, the same issue had been litigated through appeal and reference proceedings, and the deduction had been upheld. Reopening on the same material was therefore not based on any omission or failure by the assessee to disclose primary facts, but only on a different view being taken later on the merits. Such a change of opinion does not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement for action under section 147(a) read with section 148.

Conclusion: The reassessment notices were without jurisdiction insofar as they sought to reopen the allowance relating to loss on exchange due to exchange-rate fluctuation, and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the notices could be sustained to the extent they proposed enquiry into deductions for head office expenses and service charges allegedly exceeding the remittance ceilings indicated in the Government letters dated 4 May 1973 and 6 November 1974.

Analysis: The assessment records did not show that this ceiling question had been examined when the original assessments were completed. Since no prior opinion had been formed on that aspect, the matter could not be treated as a mere review or change of opinion. At the same time, the Court declined to decide the merits of whether the ceiling letters restricted deductible expenditure under the Income-tax Act, because that controversy depended on factual matters and was already pending before the income-tax authorities. Writ interference at the threshold was therefore inappropriate, though the enquiry was confined to the ceiling issue and could not be expanded into a general reopening of the already accepted pro rata expenses.

Conclusion: The reassessment notices were sustained to the limited extent that they permitted enquiry into possible excess deduction over the ceiling on home office expenses and service charges, and the assessee was not entitled to quash that part of the notice.

Issue (iii): Whether the later challenge to the reassessment proceedings for the 1970-71 year, including the gratuity disallowance, warranted interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The challenge was brought after a long delay, an assessment order had already been passed in the meanwhile, and the assessee had availed of statutory appellate remedies. The Court therefore declined to pronounce on the merits of the gratuity disallowance and the connected reassessment issues in that petition, leaving all such matters to be agitated before the appellate authorities.

Conclusion: No writ relief was granted on this challenge, and the petition was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The Court interfered only to the limited extent of restraining reopening on the exchange-loss issue, while permitting the reassessment enquiry to proceed on the separate question of ceiling-based disallowance of head office expenses and service charges; the remaining challenge to the later proceedings was declined and left to the statutory appellate process.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment under section 147(a) cannot be founded on a mere change of opinion where the primary facts were fully disclosed and considered in the original assessment, but reopening may be sustained for a distinct issue not previously examined if the jurisdictional conditions otherwise exist.

---