The assessee submitted a second revised return for the AY 1998-1999 in which it stated that the demerger of its bottling operation had resulted in a loss. In accordance with articles 143(2) and 142(1), the AO issued a notice along with a questionnaire. In addition to providing explanations in answer to the many inquiries made, the assessee also gave the balance sheet and the profit and loss account, together with the reasons for filing the revised income tax forms. After making a few disallowances and offsetting losses from prior years, the Assessing Officer   passed an order under section 143(3) computing the assessee’s total income as Nil.  The assessee appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals). By an order under section 263, the Commissioner directed the AO to pass an order after taking the issued raised in his order into consideration. Following that, a section 143(3) read with section 263 order was passed. After the expiry of four years the AO issued a notice under section 148 to reopen the assessment under section 147. On writ the Court held that the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment did not state that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of the AY 1998-99. The notice issued under section 148 after a period of four years for reopening the assessment under section 147 and the consequential order passed were quashed and set aside.  Distinguished Crompton Greaves  Ltd v. ACIT (2015) 55 taxmann.com 59/229 Taxman 545/275 CTR 79  (Bom)(HC)  Referred  Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar  (2004) 268 ITR 339 / 138 taxman 40, 2004 (3) Mh.L.J.517 (Bom.)(HC). (WP No. 1779 of 2006 dt. 26-11-2021) (AY. 1998-99)

Coca-Cola India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (Bom)(HC)(UR)