Change of opinion and full disclosure bar reassessment where the same material was already examined in the original assessment.

Reopening of an assessment cannot rest on a mere change of opinion when the Assessing Officer had already examined the relevant agreement, vouchers, India-specific expenses and loss computation in the original assessment; reopening on a fresh view of the same material is impermissible. Where four years have passed from the end of the assessment year, reassessment is also barred unless the assessee failed to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. On the facts stated, the disclosures were complete, no suppression was shown, and the reassessment notice was quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the notice reopening the assessment was invalid as a mere change of opinion after the Assessing Officer had examined the material and vouchers during the original assessment; (ii) whether the reopening beyond four years from the end of the assessment year was barred for want of failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts.

Issue (i): whether the notice reopening the assessment was invalid as a mere change of opinion after the Assessing Officer had examined the material and vouchers during the original assessment.

Analysis: The original assessment reflected a detailed examination of the assessee's agreement, the nature of its Indian operations, the computation of loss attributable to India, and the supporting vouchers. The Assessing Officer had called for information, examined the material, rejected one computation, accepted the India-specific expense details, and framed the assessment on that basis. A later attempt to reopen the same assessment on the basis of a different view taken in other years, or by reappraising the same material, amounted to review rather than reassessment.

Conclusion: The reopening was invalid and was based on a mere change of opinion, which is not permissible.

Issue (ii): whether the reopening beyond four years from the end of the assessment year was barred for want of failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts.

Analysis: The assessee had disclosed the relevant global accounts, India-specific expenditure, the basis of allocation, and the computation supporting the claimed loss. The record did not show any suppression or falsehood in the material furnished. The fact that India-specific books were not separately maintained did not establish failure of disclosure where the assessee had disclosed all facts within its knowledge and the Assessing Officer had verified the records. The statutory bar in the proviso to the reassessment provision therefore applied.

Conclusion: The condition for reopening after four years was not satisfied, and the notice was barred in law.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment notice was quashed and the writ petition succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Reopening of an assessment cannot be sustained on a mere reappraisal of the same material already examined in the original assessment, and where four years have elapsed, reassessment is additionally barred unless there was a failure to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment.

---