J. P. DEV ADHAR, J. :- In all these petitions, the challenged the notices issued under section 148 of the Income T , the said notices all dated 30th March, 2004, the assessments section 143(l)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 1997- 2000-2001 and 2002-03 are sought to be reopened.

2. Writ Petition No. 1355 of 2006 pertains to AY. 1997-9 No. 1356 of 2006 pertains to AY. 1999-2000. Writ Petition No. AY. 2000-01 and Writ Petition No. 1358 pertains to A.Y. 2 reasons for reopening all these assessments are common, all the are heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment.

3. Petitioner is a Hindu Undivided Family (hereinafter re assessee for short) and is assessed to tax since the year 1922. carrying on the business of cotton ginning and pressing from i located at Jalna, Lasur, Deulgaon Raja and Kurduwadi in Mahar office of the petitioner is situated at Bombay.

4. The returns of income filed by the assessee for the as question were processed and accepted under section 143 (1)(a) of. Act, 1961. In the said returns of income the assessee as in the pa expenditure incurred at the head office at Bombay to be set off income and the same was allowed on processing the returns of in

5. By the impugned notices all dated 30th March, 2 officer sought to reopen the assessments for the assessment y so as to disallow the loss/expenditure incurred at the administrative

the petitioners at Bombay. The reasons recorded by the assessing officer for assessments in all the assessment years in question are more or less ns recorded for reopening the assessment for A. Y. 1997-98 it is seen, the return of income was filed on 28-10-97 declaring total ,of Rs. 28,55,120/-. The same was processed under section without any variation. During the previous relevant to A. Y. 97ee was carrying out the business mainly from Jalna Kurduwadi, Raja and Lasur. He has also claimed to have an office at During the course of assessment proceedings for A. Y. 2001-02, noticed that there was hardly any activity from the Mumbai office loss from the Mumbai office was disallowed. During the year relevant to A.Y. 1997-98, it is seen from the P Laic. for ended 31-3-1997 the only income showed by the assessee for 1997-98 from Mumbai office was dividend of Rs. 26,612 and of Rs. 35,544/-. As the assessees claim of loss of Rs. 4,14,046/ount of Mumbai office is not allowable, to that extent there was assessment in this case. In the circumstances, if approved ions under section 147 may be invoked in this case and notice section 148 may be issued for A.Y. 1997-98." petitioner objected to the reopening of the assessments and pointed e past the very same issue relating to the expenditure/loss at the has been adjudicated and allowed in the regular assessment orders section 143(3) of the LT. Act. It was pointed out that even in A.Y. disallowance made in respect of the loss/expenditure incurred at the Bombay office has been deleted by C.LT.(A) on 4-10-2004. However by an order .March, 2006 the objections filed by the petitioners were rejected by assessing officer. Hence, these petitions are filed to challenge the notices section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

7. Mr Kaka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the reopening of the assessment on the ground that "there was activity from Bombay office" is ex-facie erroneous, incorrect and the 80 days old record of the petitioner available with the department. He submitted that the issue as to whether the loss incurred by the administrative Bombay is allowable or not has been considered in the assessment cannot under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for several years fore, it is not open to the assessing officer to reopen the assessments on

same ground.

8. Mr. Kaka referred to the assessment orders passed under section 143(3) . 1992-93 and A. Y. 1995-96 wherein the expenditure incurred at the office has been specifically discussed and allowed. He also referred to the order passed by C.LT