Reopening of assessment beyond the four-year limitation period is invalid when based solely on existing material from the original scrutiny assessment without proving an initial failure by the assessee to disclose material facts, as this constitutes an impermissible change of opinion.

आदेश / ORDER

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2013-14 is directed against the order dated 10.11.2025 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) arising out of Assessment Order dated 23.03.2022 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2. I will take up the legal issue raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment proceedings in light of the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Crystal Pride Developers Vs. ACIT (2025) 172 taxmann.com 463 (Bombay).

3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that regular assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2013-14 stood completed on 15.12.2015 and thereafter reopening proceedings have been carried out beyond four years that too only on the basis of the information available in the assessment record and there being no reference to any failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts in the return of income as well as during the course of assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act. He therefore prayed that reassessment proceedings deserves to be quashed as null and void.

4. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of ld.CIT(A).

5. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. I note that the assessee is an individual and income of Rs.25,66,410/- declared in the return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 furnished on 09.09.2013. Return processed u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act. Thereafter, case selected for scrutiny through CASS and after valid serving of notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act have been completed and during the course of assessment proceedings assessee furnished details of sales and purchase, details of deductions, unsecured loans, details of TDS, details of bank account and various other expenses. Books of account were also produced and have been test checked. After considering the detailed submissions filed by the assessee returned income has been accepted. I further note that subsequently notice u/s.148 of the Act has been issued on 31.03.2021 which is clearly beyond four years from the end of the assessment year in question before me. Further, for carrying the reassessment proceedings, ld. Assessing Officer observed that in the assessment order dated 23.03.2022 that on verification of the scrutiny assessment record, it has been found that assessee made interest payment of Rs.1,80,615/- to various persons without deducting TDS and further on verification of scrutiny assessment record, assessee has claimed expenses of purchase of gold jewellery worth Rs.51,400/- and also the assessee had given money to the associations for conducting of conference. All these three issues have been referred in the reasons recorded for reopening. There is no other reference of any independent material gathered by the Assessing Officer which was not placed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. All the contents of reasons recorded are taken from the books of account and assessment records which already stood examined by the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act. It has been consistently held that in the case of completed assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act, the reopening beyond years could only be undertaken only if there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts during the course of regular assessment proceedings.

6. Under the given facts and circumstances, I would like to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in th