By the Court.—Heard Sri Balbir Singh learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abhinav Mehrotra and Ms. Rubal Maini, Advocates for petitioner and Sri Ashok Mehta, Sri Gaurav Mahajan, and Sri Manu Ghildiyal, Advocates for respondent.

2. In all these writ petitions, petitioner M/s. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “YEIDA”) has challenged reassessment proceedings and notice issued under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘’Act 1961') on the ground that said proceedings are patently illegal and without jurisdiction, since conditions precedent to justify re-assessment proceedings do not exist and authorities are proceeding without application of mind.

3. Details of relevant Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as “A.Y.) in respective writ petitions and date of notice etc. are stated as herein :

Serial No.	Writ petition No.	A.Y.	Date of notice under Section 148	Date of order passed on objection filed by objection filed by Assessee against reassessment notice
1	682 of 2006	2009-10	29.3.2016	10.8.2016
2	184 of 2016	2010-11	30.11.2015	8.1.2016
3	182 of 2016	2011-12	30.11.2015	8.1.2016
4	237 of 2016	2012-13	30.11.2015	8.1.2016
5	183 of 2016	2013-14	30.11.2015	8.1.2016

4. Basic facts are common. As agreed by learned counsel for parties, we have taken up Writ (Tax) No. 682 of 2016 and Writ (Tax) No. 182 of 2016 as leading cases for the purpose of referring pleadings therefrom. Parties also agreed that though counter-affidavit has been filed only in three cases i.e. Writ Tax No. 182 of 2016, Writ Tax No. 183 of 2016 and Writ Tax No. 184 of 2016, but pleadings therein may be read in remaining two writ petitions.

5. By notification dated 24.4.2001, issued under Section (3) of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘’UPIDA, 1976'), a statutory body namely “Taj Expressway Industrial Development Authority” was constituted. Subsequently, title of body was changed by notification dated 11.7.2008, as “Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority” (i.e. “YEIDA”), issued under Section 3 read with Section 2(d) of UPIDA, 1976.

6. UPIDA, 1976 is a statute enacted to provide for constitution of an Authority for development of certain areas in State of U.P. into industrial and urban townships and for matters connected therewith.

7. Petitioner YEIDA, did not file Income Tax Returns after its constitution. For A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2013-14, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3, NOIDA (hereinafter referred to as “DCIT”) issued notice dated 7.8.2014, in similar terms, requiring YEIDA to prepare true and correct Returns of its income for above A.Ys., for which it was assessable under Act 1961. It informed YEIDA that Returns should be in appropriate form, as prescribed in Rule 12 of Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules 1962”). Notices dated 7.8.2014, issued separately in respect to all the aforesaid A.Ys. though worded similarly and mention that same is being issued under Section 142(1) of Act 1961. Pursuant thereto YEIDA filed Returns in prescribed form. In all the Returns, most columns were either left blank mentioning ‘’Not applicable’ or ‘’Nil’ or some documents were attached and mentioned ‘’Attached with separate sheets’. In the documents filed as computation of income, alongwith Returns, YEIDA declared its income and taxable liability in respect to relevant years, as under :

Serial No.	A.Y.	Gross total income Rs.	Tax liability	Refund of TDS, if any Rs.
1.	2009-10	-15736298	Nil	Nil
2.	2010-11	Nil	Nil	2,99,643
3.	2011-12	Nil	Nil	98,286
4.	2012-13	Nil	Nil	59,29,391
5.	2013-14	Nil	Nil	50,34,984

8. In respect to A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, DCIT sent letters dat