The AO issued a notice for reassessment on the ground that the assessee had been allowed 100 per cent. depreciation on temporary site accommodation and on tools, minor equipment, shuttering, centering scaffolding, pile bridge and CCE, etc., whereas under the Income-tax Rules, 1962 , the assessee was entitled only to 7.5 per cent. depreciation on temporary accommodation and 15 per cent. depreciation on shuttering and minor equipment. The assessee filed objections against initiation of reassessment proceedings which were disposed of. The AO passed a reassessment order making additions. The CIT (A) partly allowed the assessee’s appeal. Both the assessee and the Department filed appeals before the Tribunal which held that firstly the reassessment notice under section 148 was issued after four years from the relevant assessment year, and secondly that there was no failure on the part of the assessee and all the materials were disclosed by the assessee while it claimed 100 per cent. depreciation. On appeal the Tribunal held that since the amount in question of escapement of income was more than Rs. 1 lakh, the limitation period was six years under section 149(1)(b) and hence, the notice under section 148 was not barred by limitation and the finding of the Tribunal on the issue was not sustainable. The Tribunal also held that  the assessee had disclosed the full and correct facts and there was no misrepresentation or concealment on the part of the assessee. The Assessing Officer had examined and completed the assessment under section 143(3) and that being so, the subsequent changed opinion that 100 per cent. depreciation had wrongly been allowed, could not be a reason for the re-opening of the assessment. High Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal . (AY. 2005 -06)