Aloke Chakrabarti, J. - (1.) This writ petition was filed challenging the notices dated July 18, 1994, under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1984-85, 1987-88 and 1989-90 and the proceedings relating thereto.
(2.) Mr. J. P. Khaitan, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges the said notices on the ground that the requirements under Section 147 have not been satisfied and therefore, such notices issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year in each case, are time barred as in the present case for each of the years there was assessment under Sub-section (3) of Section 143 of the Income-tax Act.
(3.) It is contended that the impugned notices were issued for reopening the assessment in view of the explanation of the law in the case of CIT v. N. C. Budharaja and Co., holding that the civil contractor engaged in various activities such as construction of dams, canals, bridges, buildings, roads and other similar constructions and also laying of pressure piling, digging of borewells, etc., does not manufacture or produce an article or thing and, therefore, no investment allowance is allowable in such cases. Learned counsel, therefore, has contended that this is not a ground provided under Section 147 which justifies issuance of notice under Section 148. It is strongly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that two conditions indicated in Section 147 are that some income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the concerned assessment year and the same is by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Law in this regard has been referred to as in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO, which has since been affirmed in the case of Coca-Cola Export Corporation v. ITO. The reasons on which the said notices were issued have been referred to as appearing from the annexure to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents. Law further has been referred to as decided in the case of CIT v. Bipin Vadilal and Vareli Weaves Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT; Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd. v. ITO; Gemini Leather Stores v. /TO and Geo Miller and Co. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT and W. P. No. 2492 of 1994-Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT, decided on January 28, 2002.;