JUDGMENT I. P. Mukerji J.-The writ petitioner manufactures paints and related products. He also deals in computer accessories. For assessment year 2006-07, he filed return of income under Income-tax Act, 1961. It was filed on October 23, 2006. Total income was declared as Rs. 3,29,860. Tax due thereon was shown as Rs. 49,937. It was also declared there that advance tax of Rs. 75,000 had been paid. refund of Rs. 25,563 was claimed. previous or financial year was 2005-06. According to writ petitioner, he attached note that Rs. 17,97,336 was received by him in that financial year as subsidy under West Bengal Industrial Promotion Scheme, 1994. This subsidy was released further to notification No. 1460-FT, dated May 27, 1994, issued by Government of West Bengal. He treated receipt as being of capital nature. Apparently, writ petitioner, according to averments in writ petition, also, mentioned in note that said receipt was non-taxable as held by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, in its order dated May 18, 2001, in I. T. A. No. 1080/Cal/98 in similar case of Re: Rasoi Ltd. v. Deputy CIT. return was filed under section 139 of Act. It was not put under scrutiny or formally assessed. To put it more legalistically, no notice under section 143(2) of Act was issued to writ petitioner. On March 22, 2013, Income-tax Department issued notice to writ petitioner under section 148 of Act proposing to reopen assessment for assessment year 2006-07. This notice under section 148 is issued when Department contemplates action under section 147 of Act. It is issued in case of income which has, inter alia, "escaped assessment". law is well-settled that in these proceedings, assessment cannot be reopened beyond ordinary period of limitation because mistake therein is detected or realised or that something which ought to have come to notice of Department went unnoticed. There is also no room for "change of opinion" (see CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC); CIT v. Eicher Ltd. reported in [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) where Mr. Justice S. H. Kapadia for Supreme Court opined as follows (page 564): "On going through changes, quoted above, made to section 147 of Act, we find that, prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, reopening could be done under above two conditions and fulfilment of said conditions alone conferred jurisdiction on Assessing Officer to make back assessment, but in section 147 of Act (with effect from April 1, 1989), they are given go-by and only one condition has remained, viz., that where Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, confers jurisdiction to reopen assessment. Therefore, post-1st April, 1989, power to reopen is much wider. However, one needs to give schematic interpretation to words'reason to believe' failing which, we are afraid, section 147 would give arbitrary powers to Assessing Officer to reopen assessments on basis of'mere change of opinion', which cannot be per se reason to reopen." assessment may be reopened when in spite of exercise of due diligence something escaped attention of Assessing Officer. grounds on which assessment can be reopened are very limited and strictly construed. By his letter dated April 10, 2013, writ petitioner requested Assessing Officer to treat original return filed by him for said assessment year as return under section 148. writ petitioner also sought reasons. By letter dated May 16, 2013, issued by Department under section 143(2) of Act, he was asked to appear before Assessing Officer on May 28, 2013. By another letter of same date reasons for issuance notice under section 148 were disclosed. It was stated that writ petitioner received Rs. 9,54,326 from Government of West Bengal. This was reimbursement of value added tax and Central sales tax paid by writ petitioner. payment was made by Government under above scheme of 1994. According to Department, receipt did not fulfil requirement of capital receipt. It was being treated as revenue receipt on basis of judgment of Supreme Court in case of Sahney Steel. In letter dated May 16, 2013, writ petitioner was further informed that amount of Rs. 14,17,382 had escaped assessment. This amount was received as similar subsidy and shown in assessment year 2010-11. By letter dated May 20, 2013, writ petitioner duly filed objection to said assessment of income for assessment year 2006-07. In his objection at paragraph 2 writ petitioner stated that in assessment year 2003-04, assessment was completed under section 143(3). amount of subsidy was excluded from total income on ground that it was capital receipt. said assessment for assessment year 2003-04 was scrutinised in section 263 proceedings and upheld. objection of writ petitioner was rejected by order dated June 10, 2013. Income-tax Department followed ratio of Sahney Steel judgment of hon'ble Supreme Court reported in [1997] 228 ITR 253 (SC). entire proceedings under sections 147/148 of said Act, beginning from issuance of notice till passing of order rejecting objection of writ petitioner are challenged in this writ application. So much has been said on judgment of hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT reported in [1997] 228 ITR 253 (SC) judgment of hon'ble Supreme Court. judgment of court was delivered by Justice Suhas C. Sen. It was based on House of Lords opinion in Seaham Harbour Dock Co.'s case reported in [1931] 16 TC 333 (HL). principle enunciated in that case was that assistance given by Government for completion of project was of capital nature. Another opinion of House in Ostime's case [1946] 14 ITR (Suppl) 45 (HL) rendered by Viscount Simon was relied upon in said judgment of our highest court, to lay down principle that when subsidy was granted for purpose of carrying on business of assessee, it was to be taken as revenue receipt. So what follows from these decisions is that subsidy utilised for setting up or commencing, proceeding with or completion of project can be treated as capital receipt whereas subsidy if utilised for carrying on day-to-day business would be taken as revenue receipt. case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT reported in [1997] 228 ITR 253 (SC) was considered by Division Bench of this court in case of CIT v. Rasoi Ltd. reported in [2011] 335 ITR 438 (Cal). In this case, this particular subsidy scheme was under consideration by this court. It held that (headnote): "the object of subsidy was expansion of business capacities, modernisation and improving marketing capabilities and thus those were for assistance on capital account.... subsidy was capital receipt." In Sahney Steel, Supreme Court opined that it was question of fact, in each case, as to whether subsidy was to be taken as capital receipt or revenue receipt. In CIT v. Rasoi Ltd. reported in [2011] 335 ITR 438 (Cal) Bhaskar Bhattacharya J., speaking for Division Bench of this court, held with specific regard to this scheme that subsidy was capital in nature. Therefore, when there was specific observation of Division Bench of this court that this particular subsidy was to be taken as capital receipt and not revenue receipt it was gross indiscipline on part of Income-tax Officer to refer to hon'ble Supreme Court decision in Sahney Steel which did not decide whether this subsidy was to be taken as capital receipt or revenue receipt but laid down broad proposition as to how on factual enquiry subsidies were to be treated. Following Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC), hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. reported in [2013] 358 ITR 295 (SC) and CIT v. Mafatlal Industries P. Ltd. reported in [2013] 358 ITR 295 (SC) disallowed reconsideration of issue in subsequent year if same "fundamental aspect" permeated different assessment years. underlying principle is that at one point of time litigation must come to end. It cannot be reopened. point cannot be re-agitated again just because person with "legal ingenuinity" thinks that decision could have been different if certain law points not cited were placed or certain weight were given to particular piece of evidence (see Hoystead v. Commissioner of Taxation reported in [1926] AC 155 (PC)). If one follows ordinary rules of res judicata reopening of issue in subsequent year or with regard to another assessee may not be barred. But at least, in taxation cases Revenue is taken as one party for all assessment years and assessees together taken as other party. That which is decided between Revenue and one assessee in assessment year, having permanent effects should not be decided otherwise or treated in any other way by Revenue with regard to any other assessee, so as to maintain consistency and fairness in Government action. In Amrit Feeds Ltd. v. Asst. CIT reported in [2012] 344 ITR 187 (Cal), I had remarked as follows (page 191): "The law regarding reopening of assessment is very strict. If assessment could have been done but has not been done or erroneously done it cannot be done after expiry of prescribed time limit. Exception can be made in very special circumstances. One of them, as I have stated earlier, being'escapement of income'/Linked to this is principle that change of opinion would not constitute such escapement. In India Steamship Co. Ltd. v. Joint CIT reported in [2005] 275 ITR 155 (Cal) cited by learned counsel for writ petitioner, our court was concerned with deduction of expenditure for repairing ships. Such deduction was sought to be reopened and disallowed in section 147 proceedings after having been allowed in previous assessment years. court allowed writ application after discussing in detail several authorities on subject. court held that when all necessary information was before Assessing Officer in earlier assessments, reopening under section 147 amounted to change of opinion. In my opinion, facts on this case are quite similar to one decided by our court in India Steamship Co. Ltd. v. Joint CIT reported in [2005] 275 ITR 155 (Cal). If Assessing Officers had not questioned entitlement of assessee to deduction under section 80-IB in assessment years in question, it was their mistake. All information regarding alleged manufacturing process of assessee was before them. After time limit for making assessment or reassessment had long expired, Revenue cannot turn round, take recourse to extraordinary provision which is section 147 and attempt to reopen concluded assessments. If such exercise is permitted that would be quite contrary to intention of Act. In that case, there would be no finality to any assessment. Then, at any point of time after expiry of time Assessing Officer can reopen assessments. That would plainly be against statutory policy." That this subsidy was treated as capital receipt in section 263 proceedings for assessment year 2003-04 was within knowledge of Department. Therefore, there was no ground for Income-tax Department to contend that income had escaped assessment and proceed to invoke extraordinary provisions of section 147 and section 148 of Act. Considering all decisions there is considerable merit in submissions of Mr. Sen that initiation and prosecution of section 147/148 proceedings were without jurisdiction. At any rate, they were in abuse of powers conferred on income-tax authorities. For those reasons this writ application has to succeed order in terms of prayer (a) of writ petition by quashing section 147/148 proceedings and order dated June 10, 2013. No order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. *** Man Mohan Kedia v. Income-tax Officer