JUDGMENT :

Ashutosh J. Shastri, J.

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the impugned notice dated 20.3.2021 at Annexure-A and has also sought for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 16.11.201 at Annexure-H to the petition.

2. The background of facts which has given rise to the present petition is that petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing of aluminum extruded aerosol containers in various sizes. Petitioner filed its original return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 on 29.11.2016, declaring a total loss of Rs.39,16,25,787/-. Return of the petitioner was processed and case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny. Notice under Section 142(1) was issued on 11.6.2018, requiring the petitioner to submit specific details relating to (a) increase in share capital along with confirmation and ITR of the persons from whom the same was received, (b) details of premium received on shares along with name, PAN, address and confirmation of the persons from whom same was received and (c) details of method adopted for determining premium of shares.

2.1. Petitioner on receipt of said notice replied in detail vide communication dated 22.6.2018. Another notice under Section 142(1) came to be issued on 10.10.2019 inquiring further into valuation of premium and its conformity with Rule 11U and 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. This also has been replied to by the petitioner on 22.10.2019 and finally a show cause notice was issued on 3.12.2019 in respect of valuation of premium on shares issued by petitioner.

2.2. Petitioner on receipt of said show cause notice also filed a reply on 6.12.2019, explaining every circumstance and thereafter, Assessing Officer having satisfied with such explanation has not made any addition on the issue mentioned in the show cause notice and assessment order under Section 143(3) came to be passed on 15.12.2019, whereby a loss of Rs.38,73,56,773/- came to be assessed.

2.3. It is the case of petitioner that despite aforesaid situation, respondent authority issued impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act on 20.3.2021, calling upon petitioner to file return of income of A.Y. 2016-17. In response to this, without prejudice, petitioner filed its return of income as desired and then reasons have been recorded on 16.3.2021 by the authority, which are supplied to the petitioner only on 19.5.2021. Against said reasons, petitioner filed preliminary objections on 16.7.2021 on income tax e-filing portal inter alia questioning the legality of notice under Section 148 of the Act on 17.7.2021. The respondent disposed of the objections of petitioner on 16.11.2021 and simultaneously, authority on 16.11.2021 issued notice under Section 142(1) calling upon petitioner to supply details in relation to re-assessment by 1.12.2021. This according to the petitioner is in clear violation of the guidelines contained in a decision delivered by the High Courts, wherein clear period, which is prescribed, is to be given to petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to challenge the notice under Section 148 after the order disposing of the objections is issued and as such, in view of the afore-mentioned circumstances, petitioner has challenged the impugned notice dated 20.3.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act as also an order disposing of the objections dated 16.11.2021 by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

2.4. The petition was initially entertained by issuance of notice based upon submission vide order dated 20.12.2021 and later on, same has come up for consideration before this Court and after an order dated 19.7.2021.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Bandish Soparkar appearing for petitioner has vehemently contended that action on the part of respondent authority is not only unjust and arbitrary, but also grossly in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and impugned