Reassessment beyond four years requires full disclosure failure; absent that, reopening fails and alleged prohibited expenditure cannot be disallowed.

Reassessment beyond four years under section 147 requires the Revenue to show failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts; a mere reappraisal of material already on record amounts to change of opinion and cannot sustain jurisdiction. On that basis, the reopening was held invalid and the notice under section 148 was quashed. A disallowance under section 37(1) for alleged prohibited sub-brokerage under SEBI regulations also failed because the record did not establish that the recipients acted as sub-brokers or that any statutory contravention occurred. The expenditure was therefore not treated as prohibited, and the disallowance was deleted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether reopening of assessment beyond four years under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid in the absence of any failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. (ii) Whether the disallowance of Rs. 1,33,02,020 under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the footing that the payment was prohibited sub-brokerage hit by Regulation 15A of the SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Regulations, 1992 was justified.

Issue (i): Whether reopening of assessment beyond four years under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid in the absence of any failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.

Analysis: The original assessment had been completed under section 143(3), and the notice under section 148 was issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. In such a case, the first proviso to section 147 applies, and reassessment can be sustained only if escapement of income is attributable to the assessee's failure to make a full and true disclosure of material facts. The recorded reasons rested entirely on material already available in the assessment records, with no fresh tangible material, external information, or identified suppression of primary facts. The reasons themselves acknowledged that the annual report, audited accounts, and books were furnished, and the reassessment proceeded only on a different inference from the same material.

Conclusion: The reopening was invalid, the notice under section 148 was quashed, and the reassessment order stood set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the disallowance of Rs. 1,33,02,020 under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the footing that the payment was prohibited sub-brokerage hit by Regulation 15A of the SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Regulations, 1992 was justified.

Analysis: The payment was treated by the Revenue as sub-brokerage allegedly paid to directors in contravention of Regulation 15A, but the record showed that the assessee had earned arranger fees from a public issue and had shared part of those fees with the directors. No material showed that the directors acted as sub-brokers or that there was any brokerage activity in the sense assumed by the Revenue. Since the factual foundation for invoking the SEBI regulation was absent, the expenditure could not be characterised as prohibited under law for the purposes of section 37(1).

Conclusion: The disallowance of Rs. 1,33,02,020 under section 37(1) was not justified and was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment failed on jurisdictional grounds, and the addition on merits also could not be sustained, resulting in full relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: For reassessment beyond four years, the Revenue must establish a failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts; a mere reappraisal of already available material amounts to a change of opinion and cannot sustain jurisdiction. A payment cannot be disallowed as prohibited expenditure under section 37(1) unless the factual basis for the alleged statutory contravention is established.

---