Reopening beyond four years fails where the Revenue relies on already examined material and no failure of disclosure is shown.

Reassessment initiated beyond four years from the end of the assessment year was held invalid because the recorded reasons relied on material already examined in the original scrutiny assessment. The assessee had disclosed the relevant facts concerning sale of development rights, consideration received, fixed deposits and the exemption claim before the section 143(3) assessment. In the absence of any new tangible material or any demonstrated failure by the assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts, the proviso to section 147 was not satisfied. The reopening was therefore treated as a mere change of opinion and was invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether reassessment initiated after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year was valid when the recorded reasons were founded on facts already examined in the original scrutiny assessment and the Revenue failed to show any failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.

Analysis: The reopening was based on material already on record, as reflected in the notice beginning with the recital that the records were perused. The assessee had furnished detailed particulars relating to the sale of development rights, receipt of consideration, fixed deposits, and the claimed exemption before completion of the original assessment under section 143(3). In such a situation, the statutory precondition for reopening beyond four years under the proviso to section 147 was not satisfied, because the Revenue had to establish a failure of full and true disclosure of material facts. Reappraisal of the same material, without new tangible material, amounted to a mere change of opinion. The record also showed that the reopening objection was not met by a reasoned response demonstrating any statutory lapse by the assessee.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were invalid, and the finding in favour of the assessee on the reopening issue was upheld.

---