JUDGMENT

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. (Oral) - These Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raise common questions of fact and law. They were heard together and are disposed off by a common order.

2. In Writ Petition No. 143 of 2018 the facts are that, the Petitioner before us is a Public Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It was incorporated in the year 2002. It is claiming to be a National Commodity Exchange duly recognized on permanent basis by the Government of India in consultation with the Forward Markets Commission, Ministry of Finance, Government of India under the provisions of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952.

3. The Petitioner does not dispute that it was promoted by one Financial Technologies India Limited. That company had a dominant role in the management of the Petitioner. The Petitioner claims that it is the largest Commodity Exchange in India with more than 77% market share in terms of the volume of trade. It is claimed that the company is under the control of the Securities and Exchange Board of India.

4. Respondent No.1 is the Assessing Officer and he had issued a notice under Section 142 (2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "I. T. A. T. Act") dated 28th April, 2017 for the Assessment Year 2010-2011.

5. Before we proceed further, we deem it fit and proper to reproduce this provision.

" If, at any stage of the proceedings before him, the [Assessing] Officer, having regard to [the nature and complexity of the accounts, volume of the accounts, doubts abut the correctness of the accounts, multiplicity of transactions in the accounts or specialised nature of business activity of the assessee, and] the interest of the revenue, is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do, he may, with the previous approval of the [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner, or [Principal commissioner or] Commissioner], direct the assessee to get the accounts audited by an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288, nominated by the [ [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner in this behalf and to furnish a report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed and such particulars as may be prescribed and such other particulars as the [Assessing] Officer may require.: [ Provided that the Assessing Officer shall not direct the assessee to get the accounts so audited unless the assessee has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.]

6. Annexure-A to the Petition is a copy of the notice issued under the above reproduced provision. It is claimed that this Assessing Officer acting on the directions of Respondent No.2 has referred the matter to the special audit by a Chartered Accountant for getting the Petitioner''s accounts audited. Annexure-B is a copy of the letter dated 16th October, 2017.

7. It is Respondent No.2 who is the supervisory and administrative authority and his approval has to be obtained before the proposal of the special audit moved by the Deputy Commissioner - Respondent No.1 is implemented and carried into effect. By Annexure-C dated 15th September, 2017, the approval has been granted.

8. It is this approval, which is challenged in this Writ Petition on several grounds.

9. We have found that the Petitioner relies upon the factual position as narrated in paragraphs 5 and 6. It is claimed that the return of the income for the Assessment Year 2010-2011 after its filing was subjected to an audit as per the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and also under Section 44AB of the I. T. Act.

10. It is claimed that the return was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under Section 143 (3) of the I. T. Act. There were letters addressed by the Assessing Officer raising several queries and questions. The mandatory notice under Section 143 (2) of the I. T. Act was