S.M. Subramaniam, J.

The notice issued by the respondents dated 27.3.2015 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and the consequential order dated 13.1.2016 are under challenge in WP No.3405 of 2016. The notice issued by the respondent in Pan AGRPM1800D dated 18.2.2016 under Section 148 of the Act and the consequential order dated 8.12.2016 are under challenge in WP No.43944 of 2016.

2. WP No.3405 of 2016 is in relation to the assessment year 2008-2009. WP No.43944 of 2016 is with regard to the assessment year 2009-2010. Thus, two separate notices issued for the assessment years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 are challenged by way of two separate writ petitions.

3. The facts in general in respect of both the writ petitions are common. The writ petitioner Mr. Dayanidhi Maran assumed the Office of the Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology on 21.5.2004 and he resigned from the Office of the Union Minister on 13.5.2007. The writ petitioner states that he filed the income tax returns for the assessment year (AY) 2008-2009 within the prescribed time stipulated under Section 139(1) of the Act on 31.7.2008. The returns filed by the writ petitioner was assessed and the same reached finality.

4. While-So, the impugned notice has been issued by the respondent on 27.3.2015 under Section 148 of the Act to reopen the assessment of the year 2008-2009. On receipt of notice, the writ petitioner addressed a letter to the respondent to provide reasons for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 2008-2009. The said letter was sent to the respondent on 24.4.2015. However, on expiry of the statutory period of six years, in letter dated 8.5.2015, the respondent furnished the reasons for reopening the assessment year 2008-2009. By way of a letter dated 13.5.2015, the writ petitioner sought time for a detailed reply to the said letter of the respondent dated 8.5.2015.

5. On 1.6.2015, the writ petitioner requested the respondent to furnish the copies of the letter relied on by the respondent for reopening the assessment proceedings. The respondent in turn furnished the letters to the writ petitioner as sought for vide letter dated 1.6.2015. The letters were sent on 1.7.2015 by the respondent. On 22.7.2015, the writ petitioner raised detailed objections for reopening the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2008-2009.

6. On 8.12.2016, the respondents passed the impugned order, rejecting the objections and confirmed the reopening of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2008-2009. The writ petitioner states that at the time of issuing the notice under Section 148 of the Act, the charge sheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation in respect of the allegations was pending. However, the writ petitioner filed a discharge petition before the Central Bureau of Investigation Court and on 2.2.2017, the writ petitioner was discharged from the charges framed by the CBI Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Under these facts and circumstances, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, made the following submissions.

PLEADINGS OF THE PETITIONER AS WELL AS THE ARGUMENTS:

7. Section 147 of the Act, states that "if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of Sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned. Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this Section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this Section after the expiry of four years fro