High Court Of Allahabad
Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors.
Section 147, 148, 153
Asst. Year 1995-96
Rajes Kumar & Ms. Bharati Sapru, JJ
Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 2991 of 2002
9th September, 2010
Counsel Appeared :
Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal, for the Petitioner : Bharat Ji Agarwal & S. Chopra, for the Respondents
JUDGMENT
Rajes Kumar, J. :
In the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs :
“(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notice dt. 5th March, 2002 (Annex. 6) issued by the Asstt. CIT, Najibabad, District Bijnor, respondent No. 1.
(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notice dt. 27th Sept., 2002 (Annex. 14) issued by the Asstt. CIT, Najibabad, District Bijnor, respondent No. 1.
(c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition restraining respondent No. 1 from proceeding with reassessment proceeding under s. 148 of the IT Act for the asst. yr. 1995-96.
(d) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(e) award cost to the petitioner.”
The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and carried on the business of manufacture and sale of sugar and chemical, etc. The petitioner had two sugar units in the State of UP. The first sugar unit was situated at Dhampur, District Bijnor and other unit was situated at Rouzagaon, District Barabanki.
For the asst. yr. 1995-96, the petitioner filed return on 30th Nov., 1995 disclosing a loss of Rs. 20,61,04,870, which included the loss suffered in the asst. yr. 1995-96 to the extent of Rs. 69,80,314. Initially the return of the petitioner was processed under s. 143(1)(a) of the IT Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Subsequently, the case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny and a notice under s. 143(2) of the Act was issued and the assessment under s. 143(3) of the Act had been completed on 3rd March, 1998. The assessing authority made an addition of Rs. 6,51,75,548 (Rs. 4,22,93,200 for Dhampur Unit and Rs. 2,28,82,348 for Rouzagaon Unit) on account of undervaluation of closing stock.
Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short ‘CIT(A)’]. The CIT(A) vide order dt. 1st Feb., 1999 allowed the appeal insofar as addition was made on account of valuation of closing stock and deleted the addition. Later on, respondent No. 1 has issued a notice dt. 5th March, 2002 under s. 148 r/w s. 147 of the Act to reopen the assessment for the asst. yr. 1995-96. The petitioner sought the reasons on the basis of which notice has been issued. Respondent No. 1, vide letter dt. 26th July, 2002 supplied the reasons. The reasons for issuing the notice are reproduced hereinbelow :
“Office of the Asstt. CIT, Najibabad F. No. D-10 the 26th July, 2002 To, M/s Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Khampur. Sub : Reassessment proceeding under s. 147 of the IT Act, 1961 asst. yr. 1995-96. Reasons regarding. With reference to your letter dt. 15th March, 2002 on the subject stated above, the reasons recorded for assessment are being supplied hereunder : 1. Perusal of P&L a/c reveals that you have debited a sum of Rs. 7,50,24,520 on account of excise duty which has not been taken into consideration while valuing the closing stock. There was an increase of Rs. 1,91,838 quintals in closing stock, so, at the prevailing rate of excise duty i.e., @ Rs. 85/quintal, value of closing stock should have been increased by Rs. 1,63,06,230.
2. The details of interest transferees—that in some cases flat rate of interest has been applied, while in some other case product basis has been applied, resulting in short computation. Further as per Sch. ‘8’ of balance sheet, Rs. 11.5 lacs interest receivable and Rs. 5 lacs interest recoverable were to be included in taxable income. The above amounts have escaped amount. Sd/26th July, 2002″ Heard Sri R.R. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned standing counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that notice under s. 148 r/w s. 147 of the Act has been admittedly issued on 5th March, 2002 beyond the period of four years. For the asst. yr. 199596, the period of four years expired on 31st March, 2000 while it was issued on 5th March, 2002. He submitted that the proceeding under s. 147 of the Act can only be taken beyond the period of four years in case where there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year. He submitted that the petitioner has disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment along with return and during the course of the assessment proceeding and on consideration of such materials, the assessment order under s. 143(3) of the Act was passed. He submitted that in the reasons recorded, there is no whisper that the petitioner failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment and, therefore, the initiation of the proceeding is patently barred by limitation. He further submitted that so far as ground No. 1 is concerned, the petitioner has already furnished complete details relating to the valuation of closing stock for the units—Dhampur and Rouzagaon Sugar Mills vide letter dt. 23rd Dec., 1997. He submitted that as per the accounting policy Sch. 17 the excise duty has not been included in the stock as on 31st March, 1995, in as much as the excise duty was payable at the time of removal of goods. He submitted that on a consideration of the complete details, which were available at the time of assessment proceeding, the assessing authority has enhanced the valuation of closing stock in the assessment order which has been deleted in appeal by the CIT(A). Therefore, it is not open to the assessing authority to raise the issue relating to the valuation of closing stock and to reopen the proceeding on this ground. So far as second ground is concerned, it is stated that vide letter dt. 15th Sept., 1997 the petitioner has filed the details of the interest received and receivable during the course of the assessment proceeding and the reconciliation chart reveals that an amount of Rs. 11,49,978 has already been charged to income-tax. The interest was calculated on product basis. It was duly considered during the course of the assessment proceeding and in the assessment order it has been charged to tax. So far as ground No. 3 is concerned, it is submitted that the figure of Rs. 5 lacs interest recoverable is taken by mistake as there is no such amount in the balance sheet as on 31st March, 1995. He submitted that notice under s. 148 of the Act has been issued merely on the basis of the audit objection and merely on account of change of opinion and without any material of escaped assessment. In support of the contention that the proceeding is barred by limitation in as much as it has been initiated beyond the period of four years, he relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Foramer vs. CIT (2001) 166 CTR (All) 129 : (2001) 247 ITR 436 (All), the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of (1) Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT & Ors. (2003) 183 CTR (Cal) 47 : (2003) 262 ITR 605 (Cal), the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Banswara Syntex Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (2004) 188 CTR (Raj) 457 : (2005) 272 ITR 154 (Raj), a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Asteroids Trading & Investments (P) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2009) 223 CTR (Bom) 144 : (2009) 19 DTR (Bom) 218 : (2009) 308 ITR 190 (Bom); the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Universal Subscription Agency (P) Ltd. vs. Jt. CIT (2007) 207 CTR (All) 62 : 2007 UPTC 419, the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of (1997) 226 ITR 156 (Bom) and the latest decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 1057 of 2006 Smt. Raj Rani Gulati vs. Union of India & Anr., decided on 3rd May, 2010. On the issue that the proceeding under s. 148 r/w s. 147 of the Act cannot be initiated on account of change of opinion, he relied upon the latest decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 228 CTR (SC) 488 : (2010) 34 DTR (SC) 49 : (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). He submitted that it is a settled principle of law that excise duty is not part of the closing stock. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of CCE vs. Polyset Corporation (2000) 10 SCC 241, the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Caprihans India Ltd. vs. Prakash Chandra (2002) 176 CTR (Bom) 173 : (2002) 256 ITR 721 (Bom) and the decision of Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Parry Confectionary Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 321 (Mad). He further submitted that the assessing authority had sought permission from the Jt. CIT, Bijnor Range, Bijnor only on the first ground and no sanction had been sought on ground Nos. 2 and 3.
Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned standing counsel submitted that s. 149 of the Act provides limitation for issue of notice. He submitted that the notice under s. 148 can be issued beyond the period of four years and within the period of six years in case if the escaped income exceeds rupees one lac or more for that year. In the present case, the escaped income admittedly exceeds more than rupees one lac, therefore, the notice issued even beyond the period of four years and within a period of six years in case where there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment is justified. Therefore, the notice issued on 5th March, 2002 which was within the period of six years was within limitation. He submitted that there was sufficient material on record to show that there was escaped income and, therefore, the notice has been legally issued under s. 148 of the Act. He further submitted that mere production of books of account during the course of assessment proceeding does not amount to disclosure of all material facts in view of Expln. (1) to s. 147 of the Act. He placed reliance on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Phool Chand Bajrang Lal & Anr. vs. ITO (1993) 113 CTR (SC) 436 : (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC), the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Grover Nursing Home vs. ITO & Ors. (2001) 167 CTR (P&H) 509 : (2001) 248 ITR 493 (P&H) and the decision in the case of Sri Krishna (P) Ltd. vs. ITO & Ors. (1996) 135 CTR (SC) 75 : (1996) 221 ITR 538 (SC).
We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the records. It would be useful to refer relevant provisions of the Act. “Sec. 147. If the AO has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of ss. 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings, under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereinafter in this section and in ss. 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment years) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-s. (3) of s. 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under s. 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-s. (1) of s. 142 or s. 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year : Provided further that the AO may assess or reassess such income, other than the income involving matters which are the subject- matters of any appeal, reference or revision, which is chargeable to tax and has escaped assessment.
Explanation 1 : Production before the AO of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the AO will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the foregoing proviso.
Explanation 2 : For the purpose of this section, the following shall also be deemed to be cases where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, namely— (a) where no return of income has been furnished by the assessee although his total income or the total income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax; (b) where a return of income has been furnished by the assessee but no assessment has been made and it is noticed by the AO that the assessee has understated the income or has claimed excessive loss, deduction, allowance or relied in the return; (c) where an assessment has been made, but— (i) income chargeable to tax has been underassessed; or (ii) such income has been assessed at too low a rate; or (iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act; or (iv) excessive loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed. Explanation 3 : For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the AO may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-s. (2) of s. 148. 148. Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment.—(1) Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under s. 147, the AO shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding to the relevant assessment year, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed; and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under s. 139 : Provided that in a case— (a) where a return has been furnished during the period commencing on the 1st day of October, 1991 and ending on the 30th day of September, 2005 in response to a notice served under this section, and (b) subsequently a notice has been served under sub-s. (2) of s. 143 after the expiry of twelve months specified in the proviso to sub-s. (2) of s. 143, as it stood immediately before the amendment of said sub-section by the Finance Act, 2002 (20 of 2002) but before the expiry of the time-limit for making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation as specified in sub- s. (2) of s. 153, every such notice referred to in this clause shall be deemed to be a valid notice : Provided further that in a case— (a) where a return has been furnished during the period commencing on the 1st day of October, 1991 and ending on the 30th day of September, 2005, in response to a notice served under this section, and (b) subsequently a notice has been served under cl. (ii) of sub-s. (2) of s. 143 after the expiry of twelve months specified in the proviso to cl. (ii) of sub-s. (2) of s. 143, but before the expiry of the time-limit for making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation as specified in sub-s. (2) of s. 153, every such notice referred to in this clause shall be deemed to be a valid notice. Explanation : For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in the first proviso or the second proviso shall apply to any return which has been furnished on or after the 1st day of October, 2005 in response to a notice served under this section. (2) The AO shall, before issuing any notice under this section, record his reasons for doing so. 149. Time-limit for notice.—(1) No notice under s. 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year— (a) if four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under cl. (b); (b) if four years, but not more than six years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to one lakh rupees or more for that year. Explanation : In determining income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment for the purposes of this sub-section, the provisions of Expln. 2 to s. 147 shall apply as they apply for the purposes of that section. (2) The provisions of sub-s. (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of s. 151. (3) If the person on whom a notice under s. 148 is to be served is a person treated as the agent of a non-resident under s. 163 and the assessment, reassessment or recomputation to be made in pursuance of the notice is to be made on him as the agent of such non-resident, the notice shall not be issued after the expiry of a period of two years from the end of the relevant assessment year.”
10. Admittedly, the notice under s. 148 issued on 5th March, 2002 was beyond the period of four years. There is no whisper in the reason recorded that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the material facts for the purposes of assessment. We have perused the assessment order which reveals that the petitioner had furnished the complete details of closing stock and on consideration of such details, the value of the closing stock was enhanced and an addition was made towards closing stock, which has been subsequently deleted in appeal. The issue relating to undervaluation has been considered in the assessment order in para 11. So far as ground No. 2 relating to interest is concerned, the assessing authority has considered in para 23 of the assessment order in details. In para 23, the assessing authority has assessed the interest and dividend income as income from other sources which included the interest received from inter-corporate loans at Rs. 1,07,39,953. The details of Rs. 1,73,00,000 are Annex. B to the balance sheet wherein under the head the “Details of interest” the interest received on inter-corporate loans of Rs. 1,07,39,953 is shown. The details include the interest received for Rs. 7,08,904 and Rs. 12,329 from VLS Finance Ltd., New Delhi on product basis, interest of Rs. 8,01,279 from M/s U.P. Straw Board Agro Product Ltd. on product basis, and a sum of Rs. 9,18,357 from M/s Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd., Bombay on product basis. Therefore, it cannot be said that the complete details of interest along with return and during the course of assessment proceeding were not filed. Such interest has also been considered in assessment order and has been assessed to tax. So far as third objection is concerned, namely, “as per Sch. 8 of the balance sheet Rs. 11.5 lacs interest receivable and Rs. 5,00,000 interest recoverable were to be included in the taxable income” is concerned, as per the assessing authority’s own observation, such details had been obtained from the balance sheet which was furnished by the assessing authority. Moreover in para 23 of the writ petition, it is stated that the figure of Rs. 5,00,000 towards interest recoverable, appears to have been mistakenly mentioned. There is no such amount for that head in the balance sheet as on 31st March, 1995 of the petitioner. This para has been replied by para 12 of the counter-affidavit filed by Shri Rama Kant Shukla, IT Inspector, wherein it is stated that the contents of para 23 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated and it is submitted that the figure of Rs. 5,00,000 has been inadvertently mentioned as interest receivable in letter dt. 26th July, 2002. This is actually “claims recoverable” amounting to Rs. 27,35,365. In this view of the matter so far as ground No. 3 is concerned, the amount has been inadvertently mentioned. Therefore, it is not the case of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment.
11. It is also pertinent to refer some paras of the writ petition, which have not been specifically denied in the counter-affidavit.
“23. That regarding third objection, figure of Rs. 5 lacs of interest recoverable, it appears that they have mistakenly mentioned it as there is no such amount or head in the balance sheet as on 31st March, 1995, of the petitioner. That the petitioner had disclosed the matter fully and truly at the time of regular assessment proceedings. It had also furnished the details regarding closing stock specifically asserting that no provision of excise duty/liability in respect of goods manufactured and held in stock as on 31st March, 1995 was made and valuation of the closing stocks of both the units were furnished.
That the petitioner also furnished details of interest received in case of U.P. Staw Board and Agro Product Ltd., M/s V.L.S. Finance Ltd. and Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd. and the list of interest charged showing the basis of charging interest, whereas at the time of proceeding it imposed interest on year-end basis.
That the third objection was also dealt with as per Sch. 8 of the balance sheet, which was furnished by the assessing authority. Thus, the petitioner had disclosed the matter fully and truly and the material facts necessary for assessment in course of the regular assessment proceeding under s. 143(3) of the IT Act. Therefore, Expln. 1 of the proviso to s. 147 of the Act is not applicable, and accordingly, issuance of notice under s. 148 of the Act is wholly illegal, without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.”
In view of the above, we are of the view that the present is not the case of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the material facts. All the material facts relating to the valuation of closing stock and interest had been disclosed along with the return and during the course of the assessment proceeding which have been duly examined by the assessing authority while passing the assessment order. Further it is not the case of failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under s. 139, issued under sub-s. (1) of s. 142 or s. 148.
The proviso to s. 147 clearly provides that where an assessment under sub-s. (3) of s. 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under s. 139 issued under sub-s. (1) of s. 142 or s. 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year. Therefore, in a case where the assessment has been made under s. 143(3) of the Act, the limitation is only four years, unless the case falls under the exceptions mentioned in the proviso itself. No case has been made out that the case falls under the exception. In the reasons recorded also there is no mention that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment and it could not be because, as stated above, the assessee has furnished complete details relating to valuation of closing stock and interest, which have been duly examined in details by the assessing authority in the assessment order. The assessing authority has made an addition on account of undervaluation of stock, which has been deleted in the appeal on the ground that the assessee has followed the same method of valuing the stock, which had been followed in the earlier years. Moreover, the apex Court has held that excise duty is payable at the time of removal of goods and, therefore, the excise duty cannot be included in the closing stock.
We do not find any substance in the argument of learned standing counsel that where the escaped income exceeds rupees one lac the limitation to issue notice is six years under s. 149 of the Act, whether the case falls under the exception of the proviso to s. 147 or not.
In our view both ss. 147 and 149 of the Act are to be read together. The proviso to s. 147 of the Act specifically provides the limitation for taking action under the said section within four years and only in the exceptional case mentioned therein, namely, where there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for the assessment year, the proceeding can be initiated beyond the period of four years. Thus the proviso to s. 147 completely prohibits to take action beyond four years unless the case is covered under the exception mentioned in the proviso itself. Sec. 149 provides limitation for the issue of notice under s. 148. Sec. 149(1)(a) provides general limitation for issue of notice four years. Sec. 149(1) (b) provides six years limitation for issue of notice in case escaped income exceeds rupee one lac. Sec. 149(1)(a) and (b) r/w proviso to s. 147 of the Act clearly provides that where the case falls under the exceptions mentioned in the proviso to s. 147 of the Act the proceeding can be taken beyond the period of four years, but within six years if the escaped income exceeds rupees one lac and in for all other cases, the limitation for issue of notice remains four years meaning thereby that if the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment is less than rupees one lac, the limitation to issue notice under s. 148 of the Act is only four years even if case falls under the exception mentioned in proviso to s. 147 and six years limitation is applicable only in case where escaped income chargeable to tax exceeds rupees one lac and the case falls under exception, namely there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts. Therefore, where there is a case of failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts on the part of the assessee, the action can be taken beyond the period of four years but if the escaped income chargeable to tax is less than rupees one lac, the period of limitation for the issue of notice is only four years and where the escaped income exceeds rupees one lac the limitation to issue the notice under s. 148 is upto six years. The object behind fixing such limitation appears to be that where the escaped income is less than rupees one lac, the tax incidence may be small the action under s. 147 should not be taken beyond the period of four years in any case.
16. Thus, on the plain reading of s. 147 and s. 149 legal position in respect of limitation emerges as follows :
(i) In view of proviso to s. 147 no action can be taken under s. 147 beyond the period of four years if there is no case of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts which are necessary for assessment for the year of assessment. (ii) If the case falls under the exception mentioned in the proviso to s. 147, namely there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts which are necessary for assessment for the year of assessment then action can be taken beyond four years subject to the issue of notice under s. 148 within the period of limitation provided under s. 149 of the Act. (iii) Where case falls under the exception to proviso to s. 147 and escaped income exceed rupees one lac the notice under s. 148 can be issued beyond the period of 4 years but within 6 years under s. 149(1)(b). (iv) In case when the escaped income is less than rupees one lac the limitation to issue the notice under s. 148 is only four years, even if the case falls under the exception of proviso to s. 147.
It may be mentioned here that our above view is supported by the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Anil Radhakrishna Wani vs. ITO & Ors. (2010) 232 CTR (Bom) 243 : (2010) 36 DTR (Bom) 185 : (2010) 323 ITR 564 (Bom), in the case of Multiscreen Media (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India & Anr. (2010) 38 DTR (Bom) 8 : (2010) 324 ITR 48 (Bom), in the case of IPCA Laboratories Ltd. vs. Gajanand Meena, Dy. CIT & Ors. (2001) 170 CTR (Bom) 582 : (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom), in the case of Supreme Treves (P) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT & Ors. (2009) 23 DTR (Bom) 215 : (2010) 323 ITR 323 (Bom) the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Arvind Mills Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (1999) 157 CTR (Guj) 156 : (2000) 242 ITR 173 (Guj), in the case of Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2009) 223 CTR (Guj) 398 : (2008) 15 DTR (Guj) 1 : (2009) 319 ITR 282 (Guj) and in the case of Inducto Ispat Alloys Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (2009) 23 DTR (Guj) 286 : (2010) 320 ITR 458 (Guj).
In view of the above, we are of the view that the impugned notice issued under s. 148 of the Act is barred by limitation being issued beyond the period of limitation in as much as no case of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts necessary for assessment is made out.
In view of above, it is not necessary to deal with the other submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed and notice dt. 5th March, 2002 issued under s. 148 of the Act for the asst. yr. 1995-96 is hereby quashed.
[Citation : 330 ITR 72]
