Allowing the petition the Court held that the reasons for reopening made it clear that what triggered reopening of assessment was order passed by DCIT(IT) holding assessee to be an assessee in default for not deducting TDS from payment made to VRPLC towards management and consultancy fees. Proviso to s. 147 would stood attracted in present case since reopening was after four years and after initial assessment was u/s 143(3). Transaction regarding payment by assessee of management consultancy fees to VRPLC was indeed disclosed by assessee, not only in accounts but also in audit report. Reference was made by AO to TPO after forming an initial opinion about need for such a step-in terms of S. 92B. Without noticing that it was an international transaction, it was unlikely that AO would have made a reference to TPO. Further, TPO himself appeared to have discussed this aspect in his order and this led AO to again dealing with it in assessment order. Therefore, this was clearly not a case where there was any failure on assessee’s part to make a disclosure of all material particulars. There was no omission or failure on assessee’s part to disclose all material facts relevant to original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3).Accordingly, in terms of proviso to S. 147, assumption of jurisdiction by AO for reopening assessment was bad in law. (AY. 2010 -11)