A. L. DAVE, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Learned Advocate Mrs. Mauna Bhatt waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent. ( 2 ) THESE three petitions are filed by the same assessee, viz. Gala Gymkhana Pvt. Ltd. , Memnagar, Ahmedabad, and raised common issues regarding reopening of the assessment for Assessment Years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04. Since common issues are involved, these petitions are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. ( 3 ) RETURN of Income for A. Y. 2001-02 was filed by the petitioner on 30. 10. 2001. The case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny assessment and assessment was framed on 19. 3. 2004 under Section 143 (3) of the Income-Tax Act. Thereafter, a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 17. 3. 2008 for A. Y. 2001-02, for reopening of the assessment. The petitioner requested for copy of reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment, which was supplied to the petitioner on 10. 7. 2008. The petitioner raised its objections relating to jurisdiction and merits. The objections came to be disposed of by the respondent-authority on 6. 10. 2008 holding that the reopening was valid and within the jurisdiction. 3. 1 Return of Income for A. Y. 2002-03 was filed on 28. 10. 2002. The case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny assessment and assessment was framed on 31. 3. 2005 under Section 143 (3) of the Act, and on 25. 7. 2008, a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner gave suitable reply calling for copy of reasons recorded and filed objections raising various contentions on the question of jurisdiction and merits. However, by order dated 15. 4. 2009, the respondent-authority disposed of the objections holding that the reopening is valid and within the jurisdiction. 3. 2 For A. Y. 2003-04, Return of Income was filed by the petitioner on 17. 11. 2003, which was selected for scrutiny assessment and assessment was framed on 17. 3. 2006 under Section 143 (3) of the Act. The impugned notice under section 148 of the Act was issued by respondent-authority to the petitioner on 25. 7. 2008. The petitioner gave suitable reply, called for copy of reasons recorded and filed objections on facts and jurisdiction. The respondent by order dated 5. 4. 3. 2006 under Section 143 (3) of the Act. The impugned notice under section 148 of the Act was issued by respondent-authority to the petitioner on 25. 7. 2008. The petitioner gave suitable reply, called for copy of reasons recorded and filed objections on facts and jurisdiction. The respondent by order dated 5. 4. 2009 disposed of the objections holding that the reopening was valid and within the jurisdiction. The petitions are filed to challenge the said notices. The main ground of challenge is that the reopening is beyond the period of four years from the end of the respective assessment years and that the reasons recorded do not disclose any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the full and true facts and, therefore, it would not be a case of escapement of income at the time of the assessment. The proposed addition is not permissible in law and, therefore, the petitions may be allowed. ( 4 ) WHILE issuing notice to the respondent authority, this Court granted stay of further proceedings pursuant to the communications impugned in each petition. ( 5 ) HEARD learned Senior Advocate Mr. S. N. Soparkar for the petitioner and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Manish Bhatt for the respondent-authority. ( 6 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Soparkar has submitted that in all the three cases, reopening is beyond the period of four years from the last date of the assessment year in question and in the reasons recorded, no satisfaction of the respondent-authority is recorded on the aspect of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose full and true facts at the time of assessment. The income, which is alleged to have escaped assessment, was already disclosed; the cases were taken in scrutiny and there is no question of any non-disclosure or failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose income. He, therefore, submitted that the petitions may be allowed. He relied on several judicial pronouncements in support of his case. ( 7 ) LEARNED Senior Advocate Mr. Bhatt for the respondent-authority has submitted that the income received by the assessee on account of entrance fees from the members has been taken straight to the capital reserve, without it being shown as income and, therefore, it escaped the assessment. He relied on several judicial pronouncements in support of his case. ( 7 ) LEARNED Senior Advocate Mr. Bhatt for the respondent-authority has submitted that the income received by the assessee on account of entrance fees from the members has been taken straight to the capital reserve, without it being shown as income and, therefore, it escaped the assessment. It was the transaction with the members on account of sale of membership and the amount received on such sale is, therefore, required to be taxed in the hands of the assessee because the members of the Club are not shareholders and such contribution cannot be treated as Scapital reserve. He, therefore, submitted that this Court may not interfere with the notices. ( 8 ) HAVING gone through the papers, it is clear that in all the three cases, notices under Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act came to be issued beyond the period of four years from the last date of the assessment year in question, which is not permissible under the law. It would be, therefore, invalid. ( 9 ) THE notices under Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act and action based on the reasons recorded also cannot be permitted to stand, for the reason that the reasons recorded do not speak of any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose full and true facts in the Return. Recording of such failure on the part of the assessee is a condition precedent or sine-qua-non. On the contrary, if the reasons recorded are seen, receipts of the membership fees have already been disclosed by the assessee, but, in the capital account. It cannot be termed as either non-disclosure or a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose full and true facts in the Return. In this regard, decision of this Court in the case of Hynoup Food and Oil Industries Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, (2008)219 CTR (Guj.) 124, may be referred to, where a view is taken that reopening of assessments, after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years, would be invalid. ( 10 ) A reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, in Special Civil Application No. 12065/2008, dated 20. 10. ( 10 ) A reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, in Special Civil Application No. 12065/2008, dated 20. 10. 2008, where also it is held that assessment cannot be permitted to be reopened in absence of fulfillment of pre-requisite conditions as contained in Section 147 of the Act. ( 11 ) IN view of the above situation, all the three petitions deserve to be allowed and are hereby allowed. The impugned notices under Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act and the consequential actions are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in each petition. No costs.