Court validates assessment reopening notice, emphasizes material evidence, officer's belief, and independent review.

The court upheld the validity of the notice for reopening the assessment, dismissing the petition challenging it. It emphasized that reassessment should be based on the material that surfaces during assessment, independent of court observations. The court found that the Assessing Officer had sufficient grounds to form a belief of income escapement, including the assessee's failure to fully disclose material facts. The reliance on the investigation wing's report was deemed acceptable, as the Assessing Officer independently applied his mind to the findings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice for reopening the assessment beyond a period of four years.
2. Alleged failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.
3. Examination of labour charges during the original assessment and the concept of change of opinion.
4. Sufficiency and application of mind by the Assessing Officer in forming a belief of income escapement.
5. Reliance on the investigation wing's report and whether it constitutes borrowed satisfaction.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the notice for reopening the assessment beyond a period of four years:
The petitioner challenged the reopening notice issued by the Assessing Officer beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, arguing it was issued without authority. The court acknowledged that for reopening beyond four years, it must be shown that the income escapement was due to the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts.

2. Alleged failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts:
The court examined the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, which included findings from a search operation revealing predecided limits on expenses for labour contractors and bogus labour expenses. The court noted that these findings suggested the assessee had not disclosed all material facts fully and truly, justifying the reopening.

3. Examination of labour charges during the original assessment and the concept of change of opinion:
The petitioner argued that the labour charges were scrutinized during the original assessment, and reopening on this ground would constitute a change of opinion. However, the court found that the original assessment did not consider the new material from the investigation wing, which indicated that labour charges were bogus. The court held that the fresh material justified reopening the assessment, as it suggested non-disclosure of true facts by the assessee.

4. Sufficiency and application of mind by the Assessing Officer in forming a belief of income escapement:
The petitioner contended that the reasons for reopening did not disclose any material basis for forming a belief of income escapement and that the Assessing Officer relied solely on the investigation wing's report. The court disagreed, stating that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind to the materials provided by the investigation wing and formed his own belief about the income escapement, thus fulfilling the requirement for reopening.

5. Reliance on the investigation wing's report and whether it constitutes borrowed satisfaction:
The court addressed the issue of whether the Assessing Officer's reliance on the investigation wing's report constituted borrowed satisfaction. It concluded that it is permissible for the Assessing Officer to rely on such material as long as he applies his mind independently. The court found that the Assessing Officer had indeed applied his mind and formed his own belief based on the investigation wing's findings.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of the notice for reopening the assessment. The court emphasized that the reassessment should be carried out based on the material that comes on record during the assessment, without being influenced by the court's observations.

---