Reassessment beyond four years failed where reopening rested on the same material and no failure to disclose was shown.

Reassessment under section 148 issued after four years was invalid where the original scrutiny assessment had already examined the repair and maintenance claim and the assessee had disclosed the relevant facts. The reopening reasons relied only on the same material already on record and did not show any new tangible material or any recorded failure by the assessee to make full and true disclosure of material facts. On those facts, the attempted reassessment was a mere change of opinion and was unsustainable in law, so the notice was quashed and the reassessment annulled.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment notice under section 148, issued after four years from the end of the assessment year, was valid when the original scrutiny assessment had examined the very same repair expenditure and there was no recorded failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.

Analysis: The original assessment under section 143(3) had specifically examined the repair and maintenance claim, and the assessee had furnished the relevant details in response to queries. The reasons recorded for reopening relied on the same material already on record and did not disclose any new tangible material coming to the Assessing Officer's possession after completion of the original assessment. Since the reopening was beyond four years, the statutory requirement of demonstrating failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts was not satisfied. The reassessment, therefore, amounted to a mere reappraisal of the same facts and was hit by the doctrine of change of opinion.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were invalid and the notice under section 148 was rightly quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the reopening of the completed assessment was unsustainable in law, and the original appellate order annulling the reassessment was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment beyond four years is impermissible unless the reasons recorded show tangible material and a failure by the assessee to make full and true disclosure of material facts; reopening on the same material already examined in scrutiny assessment is a change of opinion and invalid.

---