Reopening beyond four years fails where full disclosure was made and reassessment rests only on a change of opinion.

Reopening of assessment beyond four years was treated as barred where the assessee had already disclosed the External Development Charges in the balance sheet and during original scrutiny, and the Assessing Officer relied on the same material without any new tangible evidence. On those facts, the first proviso to Section 147 applied because there was no failure to fully and truly disclose material facts. The reassessment was therefore regarded as a mere change of opinion, and the consequential additions could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether reopening of assessment beyond four years was valid in the absence of failure by the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts, and whether the reassessment and consequential additions could therefore be sustained.

Analysis: The assessee had disclosed the External Development Charges in the balance sheet and in the details furnished during the original scrutiny assessment. The reopening was founded on the same record already available with the Assessing Officer, without any new tangible material. Since the primary facts relating to the receipt and its quantum were already disclosed, the case was held to fall within the bar of the first proviso to Section 147. A reassessment based on reappraisal of the existing material amounted to a change of opinion and could not be justified as a case of nondisclosure of material facts.

Conclusion: The reopening was held invalid and the reassessment was set aside, with the consequential additions deleted, in favour of the assessee.

---