SHRI CHHATRAPATI SAHAKARISAKHAR KARKHANA LTD PUNE vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPL. RANGE I,

The ¦ Petitioner seeks writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the ¦ nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, ¦ order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution ¦ of India and to quash and set aside the said notices for ¦ the assessment years 1972-73 to 1983-84 and also to ¦ issue a Writ of Prohibition or a Writ in the nature of ¦ Prohibition or any other appropriate Writ or a direction ¦ prohibiting and restraining the Respondent from taking ¦ any steps or proceedings in pursuance of the said ¦ notices. ¦ Uploaded on - 22/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 03:30:12

Admittedly, the Petitioner had submitted the returns regularly for the assessment years 1972-73 to 1983-84 and the assessment of income was finalised regularly. The notices under section 148 of Income Tax Act to make re-assessment was issued on 28/3/89 that is, more than 4 years after finalisation of the assessment for each of the said assessment years. The learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contended that the said notices could be issued only if the assessee would have failed to disclose the material facts necessary for the assessment. If there was no such failure and all the material facts were placed before the Assessment Officer and the assessments were finalised , the assessments could not be re-opened after expiry of 4 years. This point is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Bhogwati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. Bhogwati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. Bhogwati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. Deputy eputy eputy Commissioner of Income Tax in (200[D4) 269 ITR 186. Commissioner of Income Tax in (200[D4) 269 ITR 186. Commissioner of Income Tax in (200[D4) 269 ITR 186. With the identical facts in that case, this Court held that where there is no failure on part of Assessee to disclose material facts necessary for the assessment, the notice to re-assess under section 148 could not be issued after expiry of 4 years from the assessment year. The record reveals that the Petitioner had disclosed all Uploaded on - 22/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 03:30:12

It may be noted that in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (2004) 270 Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (2004) 270 Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (2004) 270 ITR 1, ITR 1, ITR 1, the Supreme Court distinguished the facts and rules obtained in Bazpur Co-operative Sugar Factory and in the legal provisions and rules obtained in Maharashtra. Their Lordships clearly held that the Non-refundable deposits, Refundable deposits, interest thereon, C.M.s Relief Fund, Hutment Fund are not the trading receipts of the Sugar Factory. Incidentally, the present Petitioner was the Petitioner before the Supreme Court also. As far as Area Development Fund is concerned, Their Lordships observed that the receipts always remained with the Assessee. However, for want of any specific material on record, Their Lordships left this point open for the fresh determination by the Tribunal. In Income-Tax Appeal No.9 of 1999 alongwith the group of other Appeals, this Court has recently given the similar directions. Uploaded on - 22/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 03:30:12

For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the impugned notices are without jurisdiction and therefore, the same are liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, they are quashed and set aside. The Petition is allowed. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b). No order as to Costs. (S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.) Uploaded on - 22/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 03:30:12 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)