Reassessment beyond four years barred absent full disclosure and cannot rest on a mere change of opinion.

Reopening of assessment beyond four years requires a failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment; where relevant particulars were disclosed and the scrutiny assessment had already examined the claims, the jurisdictional was not met. A completed scrutiny assessment also cannot be reopened on a mere change of opinion when the same issues were specifically queried, replied to, and accepted or disallowed in the original assessment. On these facts, the notice under Section 148 and the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether notice issued for reopening assessment beyond four years was valid in the absence of failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment; (ii) Whether reopening was impermissible as a mere change of opinion on issues already examined in the original scrutiny assessment.

Issue (i): Whether notice issued for reopening assessment beyond four years was valid in the absence of failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment.

Analysis: Reopening beyond four years is permissible only when the statutory condition of failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment is satisfied. The record showed that the assessee had disclosed the relevant particulars, the assessment was framed under scrutiny, and the Assessing Officer had examined the claims relating to disallowance under Section 14A and deduction under Section 10B.

Conclusion: The reopening was invalid on this ground and was against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether reopening was impermissible as a mere change of opinion on issues already examined in the original scrutiny assessment.

Analysis: The issues forming the basis of reopening had already been specifically scrutinised in the original assessment. Queries were raised, replies were furnished, and the Assessing Officer had accepted the deduction under Section 10B and made a disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. In such circumstances, a subsequent attempt to revisit the same material amounted to a change of opinion, which cannot sustain reassessment.

Conclusion: The reopening was barred as a change of opinion and was in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The notice under Section 148 and the reassessment proceedings for the relevant assessment year were quashed, and the writ petition succeeded without costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment beyond four years is not sustainable unless the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts, and a completed scrutiny assessment cannot be reopened merely on a change of opinion on matters already examined.

---