JUDGMENT :

Devan M. Desai, J.

1. By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs :

“7A. quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 25.03.2021 issued by the Respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2017-18 at Annexure ‘A’;

B. pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, to stay implementation and operation of the notice at Annexure A to this petition and stay further proceedings for assessment and recovery for A.Y.2017-18;

C. any other and further relief deemed just and proper be granted in the interest of justice;

D. to provide for the cost of this petition.”

2. By consent of both the learned advocates, the present petition has taken up for final hearing.

3. Heard the learned advocate Mr. B.S. Soparkar for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani for the respondent.

4. Rule. Learned Standing Counsel Mr. Sanghani for the respondent waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the Scheme of arrangement in the nature of amalgamation of the erstwhile Roquette India Private Limited (PAN:AADCR6343R) with Roquette Riddhi Siddhi Private Limited was approved vide order dated 21.02.2014 by the High Court of Gujarat and vide order dated 09.05.2014 by the Bombay High Court was approved w.e.f. 01.04.2013. The said fact of amalgamation was intimated to the Respondent-authority vide communication dated 01.07.2014. Thereafter on 19.03.2019, the name of Roquette Riddhi Siddhi Private Limited was changed to Roquette India Private Limited (PAN: AAFCR2758G).

5.1 It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the notice dated 25.03.2021 under Section 148 came to be issued in the name of the erstwhile company Roquette India Private Limited (PAN: AADCR6343R). The petitioner vide communication dated 08.04.2021 informed the respondent authority that the Company with PAN: AADCR6343R has ceased to exist and the Company with PAN: AAFCR2758G is in existence in which the erstwhile company has been merged. However, the respondent then issued a notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 10.11.2021. Petitioner gave reply on 15.11.2021 against the said notice.

5.2 It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the respondent authority did not take into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner on 08.04.2021 and a reply dated 15.11.2021.

5.3 The respondent authority, however, again issued notice under Section 142(1) on 28.01.2022 by ignoring the earlier replies given by the petitioner. The petitioner again vide communication dated 04.02.2022 replied against the said notice, inter alia, highlighted the fact that the time deposits in question were purchased by the petitioner and not by the erstwhile company and the PAN of the erstwhile company was inadvertently reported.

5.4 It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that vide communication dated 04.02.2022, the respondent authority was brought to the notice that the said notice is bad in law and void ab-initio and also submitted clarifications. It is also submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that in those clarifications, the petitioner categorically mentioned that the new amalgamated company Roquette India Private Limited (PAN: AAFCR2758G) invested in time deposits from BNP Paribas and in the said time deposits, inadvertently, BNP Paribas reported in their SFT Return as having been invested in by the old amalgamating company Roquette India Private Limited (PAN: AADCR6343R). It was further clarified that on approaching BNP Paribas, BNP Paribas subsequently revised their SFT Return duly rectifying the said error. It was further clarified that the error has been rectified by the BNP Paribas.

5.5 It is the contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner that the notice issued by