Reassessment barred on same material: original scrutiny assessment presumptively applied mind, and reopening after four years was impermissible.

A reassessment notice under section 148 was invalid where the original section 143(3) assessment had allowed deduction under section 80HHC and the Revenue sought to reopen on the same material. A regular assessment carries a presumption that the Assessing Officer applied his mind, and a successor officer cannot reopen merely because a different view is later taken on identical facts. Reopening after four years was also barred because there was no indication that the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. The reassessment proceedings were held unjustified.

---

---

Issues: Whether reassessment notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was valid where the original assessment under section 143(3) had allowed deduction under section 80HHC and the Revenue alleged error in the original allowance.

Analysis: A regular assessment under section 143(3) carries a presumption that the Assessing Officer applied his mind to the material before him. In the absence of anything on record to show that there was no application of mind, a successor Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment merely because a different view is now taken on the same material. The proviso to section 147 also barred reopening after four years since there was no indication that the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were not justified and the challenge to reopening failed.

---