Reassessment based on re-verification of already examined facts was invalid absent a claim under Section 80CCC(1).

Reassessment under Section 148 was treated as invalid where the Assessing Officer had already examined the investment in the pension policy, the source of funds, the premature surrender and the surrender value in an earlier inquiry, and the assessee had not claimed deduction under Section 80CCC(1). Because Section 80CCC(2) applies only where the amount invested was allowed as a deduction under Section 80CCC(1), the reopening rested on an incorrect premise and merely re-verified material already on record. The court therefore treated the action as a fishing inquiry rather than reassessment based on fresh tangible material, and the notice and rejection of objections were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the order rejecting objections were valid when the Assessing Officer had already examined the relevant facts and the assessee had not claimed deduction under Section 80CCC(1).

Analysis: The relevant facts concerning investment in the pension policy, source of funds, premature surrender, and receipt of surrender value had already been called for by the Assessing Officer in the earlier inquiry and were furnished by the assessee. On those facts, the basis for reopening was that the surrender value was taxable under Section 80CCC(2), but that provision applies only where the amount invested had been allowed as deduction under Section 80CCC(1). Since no such deduction had been claimed, the premise for taxability was . The reopening was therefore founded on a re-verification of material already examined, amounting to a fishing inquiry rather than reassessment on fresh tangible material.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice and the order rejecting objections were invalid and were set aside.

---