1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been invoked by the petitioner herein calling in question the notices dated 15-3-2016 and 13-4-2016 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the IT Act') for reassessing the petitioner's income for the assessment year 2009-10 and eventually also seeks to challenge the order dated 5-8-2016 by which the assessing officer has rejected the petitioner's objection.

2. The aforesaid challenge has been laid in the following factual backdrop : -

3. The petitioner was duly assessed for the assessment year 2009-10. It is the case of the petitioner that on 13-4-2016, for the first time, he was served with notice under Section 148(1) of the IT Act through his Chartered Accountant and the petitioner was never served with notice alleged to be issued under Section 148(1) of the Act on 15-3-2016. Responding to the notice so issued, the petitioner filed return on 2-5-2016 and thereafter, sought reasons to believe from the assessing officer and thereafter, he was served with notice dated 4-5-2016 under Section 143(2) of the IT Act for the assessment year 2009-10. Thereafter, the petitioner sought certain information by letter dated 9-5-2016 and ultimately, he filed objections against the reasons for reopening the completed assessment under Section 148 of the IT Act on 18-7-2016 clearly stating that he was never served with notice dated 15-3-2016 and he had already changed his address duly updated in the PAN data base and the address has been clearly mentioned in the tax returns and request was made for closure of the case. But, thereafter, on 5-8-2016, the objection against reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the IT Act for the said assessment year, was rejected indicating that notice was issued on 15-3-2016 on the address shown in the tax returns and it has returned back on 28-3-2016 to the office citing the reason to be “left”. Questioning the initiation of proceeding of reassessment under Section 148 of the IT Act, this writ petition has been preferred principally on the ground that no notice was issued within the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) read with Section 148(1) of the IT Act and, therefore, the initiation of proceeding for reassessment is barred by limitation and even otherwise, alternatively, no notice was served to the petitioner under Section 148(1) of the IT Act, as such, initiation of proceeding for reassessment and the order deciding objections dated 5-8-2016 deserve to be quashed.

4. Return has been filed by the respondents stating inter alia that only objections have been rejected and the assessing officer has not arrived at a final decision to be communicated and the petitioner has alternative remedy with it if it is not satisfied with the outcome of the assessment proceeding and the writ petition as framed and filed is not maintainable. The petitioner has been served with notice dated 15-3-2016 through speed post and has filed its return of income in response to notice under Section 148 of the IT Act and also participated in the assessment proceedings and thereafter, by his conduct, abandoned the right to claim non-service of notice under Section 148. Thus, the irregularities, if any, got cured by the subsequent conduct of the assessee, as the petitioner himself on 2-5-2016 filed its return mentioning the reference of notice under Section 148 of the IT Act dated 15-3-2016, which clearly indicates the service of notice. Therefore, the writ petition as framed and filed is premature and deserves to be dismissed.

5. Mr. Ajay Wadhwa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that no notice within the period of limitation as required under Section 149(1)(b) of the IT Act, within a period of six years from 31-3-2010 was issued for reopening the concluded and completed assessment, as the notice dated 15-3-2016 was never issued / dispatched on the co