Reopening for excessive relief upheld where later facts showed the assessee was never entitled to relief under Section 26(3).

Relief granted under Section 26(3) depended on the later factual position as to whether the buildings, plant or machinery were in fact used after the termination of hostilities. When that later fact showed the assessee was not entitled to the relief, the earlier assessment became liable to reopening under Section 15. The court held that "discovered" in Section 15 is wide enough to cover discovery of a fact arising later, not only a concealed pre-existing fact, and distinguished cases involving mere change of opinion on the same material. The Excess Profits Tax Officer was therefore competent to revise the excessive relief, and the reference was answered against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether an assessment could be reopened under Section 15 on the basis of a fact that came into existence after the original relief was granted under Section 26(3) and whether the Excess Profits Tax Officer was competent to revise that relief.

Analysis: Relief under Section 26(3) depended on the future factual position whether the buildings, plant or machinery would in fact be used after the termination of hostilities. That fact could not be determined at the date of the original assessment and, when later ascertained, showed that the assessee had obtained relief to which it was not entitled. The expression "discovered" in Section 15 was held wide enough to include the discovery of a fact that came into existence later, not merely the discovery of an already existing but concealed fact. The case was distinguished from authorities dealing only with changes of opinion on the same facts. Once the factual basis for relief failed, the assessment became liable to reassessment as one involving excessive relief.

Conclusion: Section 15 applied, and the Excess Profits Tax Officer was competent to revise the relief granted under Section 26(3).

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the assessee, and the taxing authority's power to reopen and correct the excessive relief was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where relief is granted on the basis of a fact that can be determined only by later events, the later discovery of the contrary fact may justify reassessment under the reopening provision as a case of excessive relief.

---