Reassessment reopening upheld despite amalgamation objection and no full disclosure on disputed depreciation claim.

Reopening of assessment was not invalid merely because the notice and reassessment were issued in the name of the amalgamating company after merger; the objection was rejected on the facts since the transferor company had filed the return and participated in the original assessment, and the merger had not been promptly brought to the assessing authority's notice. Reopening was also not barred as a mere change of opinion because the original assessment had not examined the specific depreciation claim on customer, dealer and vendor lists, and the assessee had not shown full and true disclosure of the material facts for that claim. The reassessment proceedings were therefore allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the reopening notice and reassessment proceedings were invalid because they were issued in the name of the amalgamating company after merger; (ii) whether the reopening was barred as a mere change of opinion and for want of full and true disclosure of material facts.

Issue (i): whether the reopening notice and reassessment proceedings were invalid because they were issued in the name of the amalgamating company after merger

Analysis: The merger did not by itself invalidate the reopening. The transferor company had filed the original return and participated in the assessment proceedings. The petitioner did not timely bring the merger to the notice of the jurisdictional assessing authority or seek correction of the assessment order. The challenge based on the defunct status of the amalgamating company was distinguished on the facts and was not accepted as a jurisdictional bar to reassessment.

Conclusion: The objection to reopening on the ground that proceedings were initiated in the name of the amalgamating company was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the reopening was barred as a mere change of opinion and for want of full and true disclosure of material facts

Analysis: The original assessment had not examined the specific claim of depreciation on the customer, dealer and vendor lists. The reasons recorded for reopening were based on the alleged absence of valuation and the absence of substantiating particulars for that claim. Since the notice was issued beyond the normal period, the Court required a failure to disclose material facts, and held that the petitioner had not shown full and true disclosure in relation to the disputed intangible asset claim. The Court therefore held that the reassessment was not vitiated by change of opinion.

Conclusion: The reopening was held valid and was not struck down as a change of opinion or for lack of disclosure.

Final Conclusion: The writ challenge to the reassessment proceedings failed, and the assessing authority was permitted to proceed with reassessment confined to the disputed depreciation claim.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the original assessment did not consider the specific disputed issue and the assessee did not fully and truly disclose the material facts relevant to that issue, reopening under section 147 read with section 148 is permissible, even if the assessee later relies on amalgamation-related objections to the notice.

---