JUDGMENT

Manisha Batra, J.

These writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioner M/s Kaveri Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (JV) Unipro Techno Infrastructure which is a partnership firm and is an assessee under the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (for short "the Act"). The subject matter of CWP No.4291 of 2016 pertains to the assessment year (for short "A.Y.") 2008-09, subject matter of CWP No.4387 of 2016 pertains to the A.Y. 2009-10, subject matter of CWP No. 4407 of 2016 pertains to the A.Y. 2010-11 whereas the subject matter of CWP No.4395 of 2016 pertains to A.Y. 2011-12 respectively. Since in all these writ petitions, the facts are identical and similar substantial questions of law have arisen for consideration, therefore, they are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. The common facts leading to filing of the above-mentioned writ petitions are that the petitioner-Company which is primarily engaged in the development, maintenance and operation of development of infrastructural facilities had been awarded a contract of infrastructure development of providing Lift Water Supply Scheme to PC Habitation of some constituencies in District Hamirpur and District Kangra (Himachal Pradesh) for operation and maintenance of a scheme for rehabilitation and source level augmentation of various scheme in hilly areas in District Kangra. This project which was composite in nature was awarded to the petitioner on built, operate and transfer basis vide letter dated 08.02.2007 by the Irrigation & Public Health Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner filed its income tax returns for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 on 24.09.2008, 28.09.2009, 28.09.2010 and 29.09.2011 respectively under Section 139 (1) of the Act claiming deductions to the tune of different amount of money under Section 80-1A of the Act. It had submitted balance sheets, profit and loss account, tax audit reports etc. along with the returns. The assessing officer had issued notices under Section 142 (1) and Section 143 (2) along with questionnaire qua some of the returns. The petitioner had furnished detailed replies to those notices justifying its claim of deduction and thereafter assessment orders were passed on different dates by the assessing officer. It was further submitted by the petitioner that notices dated 27.02.2015 were issued by the assessing officer alleging that the petitioner had escaped assessment for the aforementioned four assessment years and it was called upon to re-assess its income. Then notices dated 12/13.05.2015 were also issued to the petitioner on the same ground. The petitioner had asked the respondent No.3 assessing officer to supply reasons for initiating proceedings and vide a common letter dated 05.06.2015, the respondent No.3 had supplied reasons for reopening the assessment for the aforementioned years. The petitioner had filed detailed objections which were dismissed vide orders dated 10.02.2016 and sanction was granted by respondent No.2 for initiating action by respondent No.3 of re-opening the assessment proceedings for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the aforementioned petitions making prayer for quashing notices dated 27.02.2015 and 13.05.2015 whereby its income for the relevant assessment years had been proposed to be re-assessed, and order dated 10.02.2016 whereby the objections filed by the petitioner were dismissed. The petitioner also prayed for directing the respondents to not to carry out any proceedings for framing/finalizing assessments for the above mentioned assessment years.

3. The respondents filed written statements in all the petitions submitting that the statute permitted reopening of a case of assessment after four years. The notices dated 27.02.2015 had been validly issued against the petitioner. The petitioner had been given due opportunity to file replies to the same. The objections filed by it were dul