The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the petitioner to follow the procedure mandated by the Supreme Court for challenging the notice and submitting objections to the reasons for reopening the assessment.

The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, engaged in the business of providing oil field services to various offshore exploration and production companies in India and abroad.

2. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the notice issued by the respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (Act), dated 31.03.2015, relating to the assessment year 2008-09.

3. Mr. G. Baskar learned counsel for Ms. S. Sriniranjani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenges the impugned proceedings on two grounds, firstly on the ground that the impugned proceedings is beyond the period of limitation and therefore, is without jurisdiction. Secondly, it is contended that in the absence of any allegation of suppression, the question of reopening the assessment does not arise, nor the extended period of limitation could be invoked. In this regard, the learned counsel referred to the first proviso under Section 147 of the Act. It was further submitted that the respondent, while communicating the reasons for reopening vide communication dated 09.09.2015, has simultaneously issued notice under Section 143(2) of the Act and the same is illegal.

4. With regard to the plea of limitation, it is submitted that though the impugned notice under Section 148 is dated 31.03.2015, the postal franking has been done on 01.04.2015 and it was booked on 02.04.2015, and received by the petitioner on 06.04.2015. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner submitted an objection on 06.05.2015, stating that the period of six years having lapsed on 31.03.2015, the impugned notice is not sustainable and therefore, requested the respondent to withdraw the reassessment proceedings. Without prejudice to the said submission, the petitioner sought for furnishing the reasons for reopening. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent in paragraph 6, the respondent refers to a letter from the Department of Posts dated 25.09.2015, which is much after the impugned order and relying on it, the earlier proceedings cannot be validated. With regard to the issue pertaining to limitation, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Kanubhai M. Patel (HUF) vs. Hiren Bhatt or His Successors to Office & Ors., reported in (2011) 334 ITR 0025, more particularly, the observations contained in the findings rendered by the Division Bench in paragraphs 14 to 16 of the judgment. It is submitted that in the case of Kanubhai M. Patel (HUF) (supra), the Division Bench held that till the point of time, the envelopes are properly stamped with adequate postal stamps, it cannot be stated that the process of issue is complete. Referring to the facts of the present case, it is submitted that though the notice is dated 31.03.2015, the postal franking endorsement shows that it was made on 01.04.2015, and the tracking information available in the postal department's website shows that the cover was booked on 02.04.2015 and received by the petitioner on 06.04.2015. Therefore, the entire proceedings are wholly barred by limitation.

5. On the other aspect with regard to reopening of the assessment, reference was made to the order of assessment dated 30.12.2011, (2008-09), and in particular to paragraph 16 of the order, which dealt with dis-allowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act, on payments of amounts to non-residents. It is submitted that this contention was considered by the Assessing Officer and the assessment has been completed by order dated 30.12.2011 and this is sought to be reopened based upon certain statements recorded in 2011, which were admittedly prior to the finalisation of the assessment by the Assessing Officer and therefore, there is no ground for reopening the assessment. Further, it is submitted that Section 90(4) of the Act, was introduced only on 01.04.2013 and in the instant c