S.M. Subramaniam, J.

The writ petitioner filed this writ petition, challenging the notice issued by the respondent dated 30.3.2016 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in respect of the assessment year 2009-2010 and the consequential order dated 16.12.2016.

2. In this writ petition, the writ petitioner is M/s. Sun Direct TV Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Vice President-Finance/Authorised Signatory.

PLEADINGS OF THE PETITIONER AS WELL AS THE ARGUMENTS:

3. The writ petitioner filed the returns of income for the assessment years 2009-2010 within the prescribed time limit. The returns were selected for compulsory scrutiny under CASS and scrutinised under Section 143(3) of the Act and the assessments were completed in respect of the returns. While-so, the impugned notice has been issued by the respondent in proceedings dated 30.3.2016 under Section 148 of the Act to reopen the assessment years 2009-2010.

4. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the returns filed by the writ petitioner had been assessed under Section 143(1) of the Act and again as a special case under Section 143(3) by way of complete scrutiny of accounts. Under those circumstances, the completed assessments are sought to be reopened after a lapse of six years without any basis or reasons by the respondent. The writ petitioner by its letter dated 19.4.2016 sought for reasons for reopening of the assessments. The respondent by their letter dated 31.8.2016 furnished the writ petitioner with reasons for reopening of the assessments. The reasons cited for the reopening of the assessments, in brief, are:-

(a) We have received money from South Asia Entertainment Holdings Limited in the name of share subscription along with share premium Rs. 203.98 crores;

(b) Shri Kalanithi Maran and his wife Mrs. Kaveri Kalanithi Maran were allotted shares only at Rs. 10 per share without any premium;

(c) Hence the share premium invested by M/s. South Asia Entertainment Holding Limited is clearly excess value received and has to be treated as income of the Assessee and the same should be brought to tax;

(d) The fact that this value has been received in excess has not been disclosed in the return of income;

(e) The high value of share premium with respect to South Asia Entertainment Holdings Limited, is not a genuine transaction details of which was not fully disclosed by the Assessee;

(f) Thus, there is a failure on the part of the Assessee to disclose fully and truy all the material facts necessary for assessment, for the AY 2009-2010;

(g) The above transaction is not a genuine transaction and is required to be assessed to tax under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

5. In response to the reasonings furnished by the respondent for reopening of the assessments, the writ petitioner submitted the following objections on 22.11.2016:-

(a) The receipt of share application money, on a higher premium, from South Asia Entertainment Holding Limited, a foreign investment regulated through SEBI, RBI, Registrar of Companies and the Ministry of Finance Approvals, is a fact, which is available in the Financials submitted during the course of scrutiny assessment, on the basis of which the questionnaire was issued and finally the assessment was completed after satisfying about the correctness and completeness of the accounts;

(b) It was not reasonably explained in the recorded reasons as to how the excess premium received from South Asia;

(c) Entertainment Holding Limited, which was received as a capital receipt, could be treated as 'income', being in the revenue nature. Even according to the respondent, the amount of share application money on premium was 'invested' by M/s. South Asia Entertainment Holding Limited. If it was so, then an investment by a legal foreign entity, which is a capital receipt in the hands of petitioner, could never be income in the hands of the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent's reasoning in treating the same as incom