Full disclosure in return justified reassessment where material facts on land sale and profit computation were omitted.

Reassessment under section 147(a) was upheld because the original return did not fully and truly disclose primary facts material to assessment, including the sale of the sub-plot with the farm house, the basis and extent of land conversion into stock-in-trade, the consideration received, and the computation of capital gains or business profits. A vague note annexed to the return was insufficient to meet the statutory duty of disclosure, and later reliance on wealth-tax records, a section 230A certificate, and Chapter XXA proceedings could not cure the omission because those materials were not before the Assessing Officer in the original income-tax proceedings. The Tribunal also held that the case involved no mere change of opinion, as no prior opinion on these matters had been formed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were valid on the ground that the assessees had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the original assessments, and whether the material later found in the wealth-tax and connected proceedings could defeat the reopening.

Analysis: The original income-tax returns did not disclose the crucial particulars of the sale of the sub-plot with the farm house, the basis of conversion of land into stock-in-trade, the extent sold, the consideration received, or the computation of either capital gains or business profits. The note attached to the return was held to be too vague and cryptic to amount to a full disclosure of primary facts. The Tribunal held that the assessee's reliance on wealth-tax records, a section 230A certificate, and the Chapter XXA proceedings was misplaced because those materials were not placed before the Assessing Officer in the original income-tax proceedings and could not substitute the statutory duty of disclosure in the return itself. It further held that this was not a case of mere change of opinion, since no opinion on these crucial matters had been formed at the original stage.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings under section 147(a) were valid and were upheld.

---