ORDER : Akil Kureshi, J. The petitioner has challenged a notice dated 30.03.2015 issued by the respondent Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 2008-09. 2. Brief facts are as under. 3. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. For the assessment year 2008-09, the petitioner filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 3.75 crores (rounded off). The return was taken in scrutiny. The Assessing Officer passed order under section 143(3) of the Act on 22.12.2012 assessing assessee's total income at Rs. 13.16 crores. To reopen such assessment, impugned notice came to be issued. The Assessing Officer had recorded following reasons for issuing the notice. “In the present case, assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 22.12.2010 by making following additions/disallowances: (i) Disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. (ii) Disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80-IA(4) of the Act. (iii) Disallowance under section 14A of the Act. During the year under consideration, the assessee company has shown turnover of Rs. 79,19,95,350/& the Gross profit of Rs. 13,24,86,180/(GP margin 16.73%) from Tea Division and turnover of Rs. 3,51,63,701/& the Gross profit of Rs. 3,22,03,435/(GP margin 91.58%) from Windmills division. The assessee has two lines of business i.e. trading in the tea (income of which are subject to normal provisions of taxation) and generation of power (the income of which is eligible for deduction). The assessee has debited the financial charges between the respective lines of business, as per the loans taken. It is also seen that assessee has also distributed the relevant manufacturing expenses. As per law, the expenses which have direct nexus with any line of business should be debited to such respective business, whereas the indirect expenditure (or common expenditure needs to be split between the different lines of business. However, regarding the administrative expense and the other expenses, it is evident that the assessee company has debited a sub of Rs. 1,72,48,250/- and Rs. 58,43,886/respectively on these account, out of which only Rs. 1,36,829/(only 0.59%) has been debited to the wind mills division, claiming deduction under section 80IA. It is seen that the assessee company has not debited a single rupee, spent on Directors remuneration, the establishment expenses of the head office like electricity, vehicles, rates and taxes etc and staff expenses in the windmill division. 1,36,829/(only 0.59%) has been debited to the wind mills division, claiming deduction under section 80IA. It is seen that the assessee company has not debited a single rupee, spent on Directors remuneration, the establishment expenses of the head office like electricity, vehicles, rates and taxes etc and staff expenses in the windmill division. No such office expenses has been debited to the windmill divisions. Any line of business cannot function on its own. The assessee company seems to have debited only direct expenses to the windmill divisions. Where all the common expenses have been debited to the tea division, thereby artificially pumping its income eligible for deduction under section 80IA leading to lower returned income and consequently lower taxes. Hence, the common expenses, needs to be allocated between both lines of business in order to arrive at true picture. Since, one line of business is a trading concern (tea division) and other is manufacturing concern (generation of electricity), the ratio of turnover cannot be a correct ratio owing in the difference in their basic character. Turnover of a trading concern can be high, without requirement of higher capital and efforts, but the profit percentage is low, as compared to a manufacturing concern. Hence, for allocation of common costs, owing to difference in character of both lines of business, the average of profit ratio and the gross asset ratio. A. Calculation of gross asset ratio: Gross Block as per schedule-5 of audit report Total assets value Windmill asset value Percentage of windmill block to total block 2,75,86,028 8,02,87,769 74.42% B. Calculation of profit ratio. Total business income Income from windmill Percentage of windmill income to total business income 5,76,55,839 1,81,96,506 31.56% C. Average of A and B above: (74.42 + 31.56)/2 = 52.99% Hence, 52.99% of the administrative expenses and the other expenses amounting to Rs. 2,30,92,136/should be debited to the windmill divisions thereby reducing their total income and the income eligible for deduction under section 80IA by an equivalent amount and conversely the income of the other business other than windmill would accordingly increase. An amount of Rs. 1,22,36,522/is to be debited to the windmill division and thereby reducing the total income eligible for deduction claimed under section 80IA(4) of the Act. In view of the above facts, the undersinged have reason to believe that the amount of Rs. An amount of Rs. 1,22,36,522/is to be debited to the windmill division and thereby reducing the total income eligible for deduction claimed under section 80IA(4) of the Act. In view of the above facts, the undersinged have reason to believe that the amount of Rs. 1,22,36,522/- is required to be taxed in the tea division of the assessee company as well as excessive deduction was allowed under section 80IA(4) of the Act. Hence, there is escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. Thus, it is a fit case for issuing notice under section 148 of the Act.” 4. The petitioner raised detail objections to the notice for reopening under letter dated 24.12.2015, in which, with respect to the true and full disclosures, the assessee had contended as under: “In respect of the aforesaid reason for reopening, we would like to submit that the nature of administrative expenses and other expenses already stands verified and accepted in the original assessment proceedings and there is no doubt as regards the claim thereof as made in the respective divisions, which stands established from the following facts. (a) First of all, our company has maintained separate books of accounts for the tea division as well as windmill division. (b) Secondly, in the separate books of accounts there is clear bifurcation of all the expenses in the nature of manufacturing expenses, administrative expenses, financial expenses, financial expenses and depreciation for all the divisions and thus, there is no question of there being any common expenses for both the divisions. (c) Thirdly, on the basis of maintenance of separate books of accounts, the statutory auditor has also prepared separate audit reports for both the divisions wherein also; all the expenses stands clearly categorised under the head, “Manufacturing”, “administrative”, “Financial” and “Other” expenses. (d) Fourthly, our company has also prepared separate division wise computation of Income for each of the windmills installed by it and the said separate computation of income also stand furnished during the course of the original assessment proceedings and are forming part of the original assessment record. (d) Fourthly, our company has also prepared separate division wise computation of Income for each of the windmills installed by it and the said separate computation of income also stand furnished during the course of the original assessment proceedings and are forming part of the original assessment record. (e) Fifthly, during the course of the original assessment proceedings, the then learned AO had also called for detail of various expenses like staff salary and incentive, bonus and boni expenses, donation, advertisement and sales promotion expenses, commission and brokerage expenses, etc., which have duly furnished and are forming part of the original assessment record. Here it is pertinent to note that during the course of original assessment proceedings, the then learned AO had even called for explanations in respect of variation in certain expenses and these explanations also stand furnished by us and accepted by the then learned AO. (f) Lastly but most importantly, it is very pertinent to note that the other expenses of Rs. 58,43,886/- which have been held to be in the nature of common expenses and which are proposed to be bifurcated between the 2 divisions of the company, already stands fully disallowed in the computation of income except an amount of Rs. 36,812/-, as being in the nature of donation, interest on late payment of TDS, loss on sale of assets, etc. and hence, there is no question of these expenses being wrongly claimed in the tea division instead of the windmill division, to claim higher deduction under section 80IA and therefore, the impugned reopening has been clearly made without proper verification of facts or application of mind. From the aforesaid facts there remains no doubt that all the expenses for each of the divisions stands verified and accepted by the then learned AO and therefore, it gets established that there is no failure on the part of our company to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for assessment. Thus, in the absence of any failure on the part of our company to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for the assessment the impugned notice being issued after the statutory period of 4 yeas is timebarred and is required to be quashed out rightly as being bad in law.” Such objections came to be rejected by the Assessing Officer by an order dated 29.02.2016. 5. 5. From the above materials, it can be seen that the notice for reopening came to be issued beyond the period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year. The requirement of the income chargeable to tax having escaped assessment for the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts, would therefore, have to be satisfied. 6. With this background, we may revert back to the reasons recorded. The reasons point out that the assessee company is engaged in two businesses viz. of trading in tea, income from which is taxed under normal provisions and in generation of power through windmills, income from which is exempt under section 80IA of the Act. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee had not correctly apportioned the expenditure between these two businesses and thereby artificially inflated the income of the eligible businesses to gain larger deduction. 7. We are not on validity of the Assessing Officer's contention. We are concerned only with the question of failure on part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. 8. It is not even the case of the Assessing Officer that he noticed the disproportionate allegation/allocation of expenditure in the accounts of non eligible business through any material extraneous to the assessment records. In fact, his entire observations contained in the reasons recorded are borne out from the data available in the assessment records. Further, as pointed out by the assessee in the objections, full separate accounts of both divisions were maintained and also presented before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment. This is therefore, a clear case where, there was no failure on part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment. Notice for reopening which was issued beyond a period of four year must therefore, fail. The same is therefore quashed. 9. Petition is allowed and disposed of.