Advocates:
['M/S AMARCHAND AND MANGALDAS AND SURESH A SHROFF andC', '', 'Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas', 'R NOS', 'ARE SERVED', 'A D RECD', '', 'R NO IS SERVED BY H D']

rsk

1 / 9

913-1-WP-1779-06.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.1779 OF 2006

Coca-Cola India Private Limited,

a Company incorporated under the

Companies Act, 1956 and having its

registered Office at Plot No.1109-1110,

Pirangut, Taluka Mulshi, Pune 412 108

...Petitioner

vs.

1. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax,

Circle 1 (1), Pune.

2. The Commissioner of Income- Tax-I, Pune

3. The Union of India

...Respondents

----

Mr. Nitesh Joshi with Mr. Arun Siwach and Ms. Prachi Vasudeo i/b Cyril

Amarchand Mangaldas for Petitioner.

Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondent.

----

CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM AND

AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATE : 26 NOVEMBER 2021

JUDGMENT: ( Per K. R. Shriram, J.)

Petitioner is impugning notice dated 28/3/2005 received by

respondent No.1 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act seeking

reopening of the assessment for the Assessment Year 1998-1999 and the

rsk

2 / 9

913-1-WP-1779-06.doc

consequential order dated 10/11/2005 received by respondent No.1 under

section 143(2) of the Act and the order dated 28/2/2006.

2.

Petitioner is a Company engaged in the business of

manufacture and sale of non-alcoholic beverage bases and beverages made

out of such bases. With a view to reorganize its business so as to achieve

certain commercial advantages, petitioner filed in this Court an application

under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 whereby it had

sought sanction for the transfer of its bottling manufacturing undertaking

in Pune and Goa to a company Hindustan Coco-Cola Beverages Private

Limited (HCCBPL). HCCBPL also filed an application in Delhi High Court

for the same purpose. On 3/5/1999 the scheme of arrangement was

sanctioned by Bombay High Court and on 13/8/1999 Delhi High Court

also sanctioned the scheme of arrangement filed in that Court by HCCBPL.

3.

In the meanwhile, on 30/11/1998, petitioner filed the return

of income which disclosed total loss of Rs.100,80,48,931/-. On 31/3/1999

petitioner filed revised return declaring loss of Rs.73,83,98,203/-. On

31/12/1999 petitioner filed second revised return declaring loss of

Rs.23,23,42,821/- for the Assessment Year 1998-1999 as a result of

demerger of petitioner’s bottling division. Respondent issued a notice

rsk

3 / 9

913-1-WP-1779-06.doc

dated 10/12/2000 to petitioner under Section 143(2) of the Act and

another notice on the same date under section 142(1) of the Act together

with a questionnaire. Petitioner replied vide its letter dated 24/10/2000

and furnished reasons for filing a revised return of income. On

24/11/2000 petitioner provided further clarification to respondent No.1 in

response to various queries raised by respondent No.1 and on 22/2/2001

respondent No.1 issued a questionnaire in which it is noted that petitioner’

s

bottling division had been demerged with effect from 30/11/1997. On

8/3/2001 petitioner provided to respondent No.1 Balance Sheet and the

Profit and Loss Account as on 30/11/1997.

4.

Respondent No.1 passed assessment order dated 30/3/2001

under section 143 (3) of the Act in which respondent No.1 computed total

income of petitioner as “Nil” after setting off earlier year'

s losses to the

extent of Rs.22,42,75,013/- Aggrieved by the disallowances made by

respondent No.1, petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of

Income Tax (Appeals), Pune. By an order dated 14/8/2003, respondent

No.2 had issued a show cause notice under Section 263 of the Act and on

28/3/2003 set aside the assessment order passed on 30/3/2001 and

directed respondent No.1 to pass a fresh assessment order after considering

the issues which respondent No.2 had identified in the first order. On

rsk

4 / 9

913-1-WP-1779-06.doc

22/3/2004 respondent No.1 passed the assessment order under Section

143(3) of the Act read with Section 263 of the Act.

5.

On 28/3/2005, after expiry of 4 years from the relevant

Assessment Year, respondent No.1 issued a notice under