Assessment cannot be reopened without new information beyond prescribed period. Revisiting assessments requires legally recognized grounds to maintain finality.

The court held that the Assessing Officer cannot reopen an assessment based on the same materials without new information, especially beyond the prescribed period. Revisiting assessments should only occur on legally recognized grounds to maintain the finality of an assessment order. The petitions challenging the reopening notices were allowed, and the notices were set aside.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to notice seeking to reopen assessment for assessment year 2010-11 based on unaccounted professional receipts found during survey operation.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a professional architect, filed his income tax return for the assessment year 2010-11, which was accepted under section 143(1) of the Act. However, a survey operation under section 133A of the Act led to the Assessing Officer issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act to reopen the assessment based on unaccounted professional receipts amounting to Rs. 5,96,914 found during the survey. The Assessing Officer contended that the petitioner failed to disclose fully and truly the material facts necessary for assessment, leading to income escaping assessment. The petitioner, in response to the notice, declared the unaccounted income in the return. The Assessing Officer made certain disallowances and accepted the returned income. Subsequently, another notice was issued to reopen the assessment based on the same unaccounted receipts, claiming the figures in the petitioner's diary were underreported by removing one zero, thus asserting a higher undisclosed income.

The Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening the assessment were based on the material already on record during the previous assessment proceedings. The court held that without any new information or material not part of the original assessment proceedings, it was not permissible for the Assessing Officer to frame a fresh assessment, especially when the notice of reopening was issued beyond the prescribed period of four years. Allowing a reexamination of the issue based on the same materials would undermine the finality of an assessment order, which should only be revisited on legally recognized grounds. Consequently, the petitions challenging the reopening notices were allowed, and the notices were set aside.

---