( 1 ) ALL these Special Civil Applications list of which is annexed as schedule to this order, raise a common issue in similar set of facts relating to each case, hence they are being heard and decided together by a common order.

( 2 ) THE dispute in each case relates to initiation of proceedings for reopening assessment for the assessment year 1984-85/85-86 by issuing notice under Section 148 in March 1991 and the principal contention raised in all these cases is whether the proceedings have been initiated within the pereiod prescribed under the Act. It is urged by Mr. J. P. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner assessees in all these cases, that there has been no failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under Section 139 or failure to make a return in response to the notice issued under subsection (1) to Section 142 or under Section 148 nor there is any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for the assessment years in question. That being so, assessment for these assessment years having been duly completed, proceednigs for reassessment, if any, could not have been initiated, after the expiry of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year. Assessment year 1984-85 closes on 31. 3. 1985 and assessment year 85-86 closes on 31. 3. 1986. Notices issued in March 1991 are clearly beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year of which proceedings for reassessment are sought to be initiated in each of these cases.

( 3 ) IN pursuance of notice, no reply has been furnished on behalf of the Revenue. However, the copies of reasons recorded as required before issuance of notice has been placed on record, which for all these cases are in identical terms. As a matter of illustration, we reproduce the reasons recorded in the case of Verili Weavers (P) Ltd. for the assessment year 1984-85:"on going through the Income-tax case records of the assessee for the assessing year 1985-86 it is noticed that an amount of Rs. 68,44,752 was claimed by the assessee from gross income to arrive at net taxable income under a claim of the assessee that the said amount was claimable as a deduction in the computation of net taxable income under the assessees perception of ratio in the case of M/s. Lakhanpal National Ltd. , decided by Honble High Court of Gujarat (162 ITR) and it was not disallowed by the assessing officer while completing the assessment under section 143 (3) of the I. T. Act under assessment order dated 14. 11. 86 perhaps for the reason that due deligence was not exercised by the assessing officer. Th eclaim of above exemption of the assessee was prima facie wrong and by reason of the said unsustainable claim of deduction put forward by the assessee and its not disallowance by the assessing officer has resulted in escapement of income from tax to the extent of the above said amount of Rs. 68,44,752 in above said assessment year. In fact recently Honble Supreme Court of India has held in the case of British Paints India Ltd. (188 ITR Vol. I page 45) that profit of a trade is a question of fact and it must be ascertained, as all facts must be ascertained, with reference to the evidence, and not on doctrines or theories. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that an amount of Rs. 68,44,752 has escaped assessment on account of unsustainable claim of deduction for the above said amount put forward by the assessee, which did not form part ofthe audited profit and loss account of the assessee, and allowance of said claim of deduction for lack of application of due deligence on the part of the assessing officer, in the above said assessment year and therefore, the assessment is required to be reopened under section 147 of the I. T. Act to tax the escaped income and accordingly notice under section 148 of the I. T. Act is being issued. Since a period of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment ye