Ramesh Ranganathan, J. -

INTRODUCTION :

The “Satyam Scam”, allegedly running into a few thousand crores, came to light on a letter of confession dated 7.1.2009 being addressed to the Board of Directors of Satyam Computer Services Limited (“SCSL” for short) by Sri B. Ramalinga Raju, the then Chairman. This was followed by his alleged confession in prison on 23.2.2009 to the effect that the books of accounts had been fudged; Rs.1230 crores was arranged to SCSL to run their operations; and money was raised by pledging the shares of M/s Maytas Infra Limited, apart from the shares of SCSL. Several agencies, including the Income Tax department, caused investigation into different aspects of the “Scam”. According to the Income Tax Department, more than 370 companies were promoted by Sri B. Ramalinga Raju and his immediate family members. Commencing March, 2009 assessments, finalized for the year 2002-03, of several of these companies were sought to be reopened, and notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act (“Act” for brevity) were issued calling upon them to show cause why the assessments should not be reopened under Section 147 of the Act. Several of these companies invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and filed W.P. No.28300 of 2009 & batch. Either before Writ Petitions were filed, or during the period they were pending before this Court, the assessing authority passed re-assessment orders aggrieved by which some of these companies preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (“CIT(A)” for brevity). Fifty eight Writ Petitions filed before this Court, (in W.P. No.28300 of 2009 & batch) by companies against whom reassessment orders were passed, were dismissed as infructuous by the order of this Court dated 02.02.2011 giving them liberty to raise all questions, including on the jurisdiction of assessing authority to reopen assessment, before the CIT (A). Nine Writ Petitions, wherein reassessment orders have not yet been passed as a result of the interim stay granted by this Court, were heard elaborately, and are now being disposed of by this common order.

FACTS IN BRIEF:

2. The facts in W.P.No.27817 of 2009 may be taken as illustrative of all the cases in this batch of Writ Petitions. The notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 26.3.2009, seeking to reopen assessment of the year 2002-03, and the notice issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act, dated 15.12.2009, for the assessment years 200203 and 2007-08, are under challenge by the petitioner - a company engaged in setting up plants for generation of power. As stated in the affidavit, filed in support of the said Writ Petition, the petitioner was originally one amongst the Sat yam Group of companies. After July, 2003, the petitioner - Gautami Power Limited - was taken over by the GVK group of companies. The name of the petitioner company was, subsequently, changed to GVK Gauthami Power Limited.

3. For the assessment year 2002-03 the petitioner filed its return of Income on 28.3.2003. It is their case that during the accounting year, relevant to the assessment year 2002-03, they were in the process of setting up a power plant and, therefore, did not submit any profit and loss account. The 1st respondent completed assessment, and passed the assessment order dated 21.3.2005 under Section 143(3) of the Act. The petitioner claims to have paid the tax levied without prejudice to their remedies under the Act. They also filed a return of income on 23.10.2007 for the assessment year 2007-08. It is their case that, during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 2007-08, they had not commenced business and, therefore, did not submit their profit and loss account. The 2nd respondent assessed the returns filed by the petitioner, under Section 143(1) of the Act, and granted refund of tax.

4. Thereafter, in exercise of his powers under Section 148 of the Act, the 2nd respondent issued notic