JUDGMENT :

ARAVIND KUMAR, J.

1. These three Special Civil Applications are filed by same assessee and on account of issue involved being common these Special Civil Applications are taken up together for consideration and disposed of by this common judgment by narrating the facts of each case chronologically hereinbelow.

2. Petitioner seeks to challenge the legality of re-opening of the assessment in all these petitions by issuance of impugned notices and passing of the impugned orders raising several contentions.

RE: SCA No. 19274 OF 2018

3. Petitioner is a Director/Partner in various firms and derives income from various sources. For the Assessment Year 2011-12, petitioner filed the return of income by declaring his income to the tune of Rs.1,00,85,160/- and paid tax to the tune of Rs.33,45,909/-. A notice dated 30.3.2018 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) was issued for re-assessing the income and called upon the petitioner to file his return of income in the prescribed form for the said assessment year. On 29.8.2018, the assessee filed the reply denying about the income having escaped assessment and contending original income of return is once again offered as income in the return of income filed in response to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. Petitioner sought for reasons supporting the action of re-opening of the assessment/re-assessment. By communication dated 17.9.2018, the reasons for re-opening the assessment came to be provided. Petitioner appeared before the respondent authority and also made oral as well as written submissions raising several contentions and specifically contending the assessment proceedings could not be re-opened after 6 years and that too without any justification and sought for dropping of the proceedings. The contentions raised in the notice for re-opening came to be reiterated and order dated 26.11.2018 came to be passed which came to be communicated and received by petitioner on 05.12.2018 and surprisingly, yet another notice was served upon petitioner dated 06.12.2018 directing the petitioner to remain present for further hearing on 12.12.2018 and conveyed that in no circumstance, adjournment would be granted. Petitioner accordingly, represented before the authority, but then, was constrained to challenge the legality and validity of the impugned notice dated 30.03.2018 as also the impugned order dated 26.11.2018. In the preliminary hearing which took place before the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while issuing notice this Court has passed an order on 12.12.2018 which reads as under :

“1. Mr. S.N. Soparkar, Senior Advocate, learned counsel with Mr. Abhishek Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 2011-12, to submit that the Assessing Officer seeks to reopen the assessment of the petitioner in connection with purchase of the land bearing Block No.438 and 439 paiki 2 and Block No. 706 situated at Dumas. It was pointed out that, in the reasons recorded itself, the Assessing Officer has recorded that both the lands bearing Block No.438 and 439 paiki 2, have been purchased by M/s. R.P. Associates of which the petitioner was a partner. It was further pointed out that, insofar as the Block No. 706 at Dumas is concerned, the Assessing Officer has recorded that the petitioner’s firm, M/s. A.R. Enterprise, has paid Rs.18 Crores (rounded off) out of the books, which can be treated as unaccounted investment of the petitioner’s firm, M/s. A.R. Enterprise, for the financial year 2013- 14. It was submitted that, therefore, even according to the Assessing Officer land of Block No.438 and 439 paiki 2 had been purchased by M/s. R. P. Associates, and land bearing Block No. 706 at Dumas was purchased by M/s. A.R. Enterprise. It was submitted that whe