Court upholds assessment reopening based on new material beyond 4 years, rejects claims of change of opinion.

The court upheld the reopening of the assessment, finding it justified based on new tangible material received by the assessing officer beyond four years. The court determined that the assessing officer independently verified the information, conducted necessary inquiries, and had a reasonable belief that income had escaped assessment. Claims of change of opinion, borrowed satisfaction, and conjectures were dismissed as the court found them lacking merit. The writ application was dismissed, and the impugned notice and order disposing of objections were upheld.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Reopening of assessment beyond four years.
2. Reopening based on change of opinion.
3. Reopening based on borrowed satisfaction.
4. Allegation of bogus purchases from M/s. Brown Pharmaceuticals.
5. Reopening based on conjectures and surmises.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Reopening of Assessment Beyond Four Years:
The petitioner argued that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law as it was beyond a period of four years from the end of the assessment year. It was contended that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose necessary materials at the time of the original assessment. The court noted that the assessing officer had received fresh tangible material through the investigation wing, which led to the conclusion that the income had escaped assessment. The court found that the assessing officer had applied his independent mind to the information received and had made independent enquiries before forming the belief that income had escaped assessment. Therefore, the reopening was justified despite being beyond four years.

2. Reopening Based on Change of Opinion:
The petitioner contended that the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible in law. The court referred to previous judgments and noted that the mere fact that transactions were examined during the original assessment does not preclude reopening if fresh material suggests that the disclosures were not truthful. The court held that the assessing officer had new, specific, and reliable information that led to the belief that the income had escaped assessment, which was not a mere change of opinion.

3. Reopening Based on Borrowed Satisfaction:
The petitioner argued that the assessing officer had acted mechanically on the basis of information received from another department without independent application of mind. The court examined the reasons recorded by the assessing officer and found that he had indeed applied his independent mind and conducted enquiries before forming the belief that the income had escaped assessment. The court cited previous cases to support the view that reliance on information from other departments, followed by independent verification, does not constitute borrowed satisfaction.

4. Allegation of Bogus Purchases from M/s. Brown Pharmaceuticals:
The petitioner claimed that no purchases were made from M/s. Brown Pharmaceuticals during the year under consideration, and thus, the question of bogus purchases did not arise. The court noted that the assessing officer had received information indicating that M/s. Brown Pharmaceuticals was involved in hawala dealings and providing accommodation entries. The petitioner had made payments to M/s. Brown Pharmaceuticals at the request of Aroma Impex, which was found to be a suspicious transaction. The court found that the assessing officer had sufficient material to form the belief that the transactions were not genuine.

5. Reopening Based on Conjectures and Surmises:
The petitioner contended that the reopening was based on conjectures and surmises. The court disagreed, stating that the assessing officer had specific and definite information from the investigation wing, which was verified through independent enquiries. The court held that the assessing officer had a reasonable basis to believe that the income had escaped assessment, and the reopening was not based on mere conjectures or surmises.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ application, holding that the reopening of the assessment was justified based on the new tangible material that came into the hands of the assessing officer. The court found that the assessing officer had applied his independent mind, conducted necessary enquiries, and formed a reasonable belief that the income had escaped assessment. The contentions regarding change of opinion, borrowed satisfaction, and conjectures were found to be without merit. The impugned notice and the order disposing of the objections were upheld.

---