Reassessment beyond four years requires nondisclosure of material facts; reopening on the same record is a change of opinion.

Reassessment initiated beyond four years from the end of the assessment year requires the Assessing Officer to establish that income escaped assessment because the assessee failed to fully and truly disclose all material facts. Where the issue had already been examined in the original scrutiny assessment through a questionnaire and the assessee had furnished its explanation, reopening on the same material is a change of opinion. In the absence of fresh tangible material or a recorded basis showing nondisclosure, the jurisdictional condition under the proviso to section 147 is not met, and the reopening is invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment initiated after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year was valid in the absence of any allegation or material showing failure by the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts, and whether the reopening was barred as a mere change of opinion.

Analysis: The reassessment notice was issued beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, so the proviso to section 147 required the Assessing Officer to show that escapement of income was attributable to the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. The record showed that the issue of exclusion of foreign branch income had already been raised in the original scrutiny proceedings under section 143(3) through the questionnaire under section 142(1), and the assessee had furnished its explanation. The original assessment thus involved application of mind on the very point later sought to be reopened. In the absence of any fresh tangible material and in the absence of a recorded basis demonstrating nondisclosure, the subsequent reopening amounted to revisiting the same matter on identical facts.

Conclusion: The reassessment was invalid as it was founded on a mere change of opinion and failed to satisfy the jurisdictional requirement under the proviso to section 147; the reopening and consequential addition were deleted, in favour of the assessee.

---