JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the Writ Petitioner / Assessee on the file of the First Respondent to quash the impugned notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 19.01.2021 in DIN and Notice No.ITBA/AST/S/148/2020-21/1029885993(1) for the assessment year 2018-19 for want of jurisdiction.)

1. In the captioned main writ petition a notice dated 19.01.2021 bearing Reference No.ITBA/AST/S/148/2020-21/1029885993(1) qua assessment year 2018-19 regarding the writ petitioner [hereinafter 'impugned notice' for the sake of convenience and clarity] has been called in question. To be noted assessment year 2018-19 shall hereinafter be referred to as 'said AY' for the sake of convenience and clarity.

2. Owing to the narrow compass on which the captioned main writ petition turns, with the consent of Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned Counsel on record on behalf of writ petitioner and Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.P.Ajitha, who accepted notice on behalf of both the respondents, captioned main writ petition was taken up and heard out.

3. Notwithstanding several grounds that have been raised in the writ affidavit and very many averments that have been raised in the writ affidavit, besides case laws that have been annexed to the writ paper book, learned Counsel for writ petition at the hearing in the Admission Board submitted that he will restrict his submission to one point qua his campaign against the impugned notice. That one point turns on GKN Driveshafts principle being law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer and Ors. reported in (2003) 1 SCC 72. This is also reported in [2002] 125 TAXMAN 963 (SC) but I would refer to the case law as reported in MANU/SC/1053/2002.

4. Before I proceed further, owing to the short point and narrow compass, bare minimum facts imperative for appreciating this order ie., factual matrix in a nutshell will suffice and such facts shorn of unnecessary particulars are that the writ petitioner filed original return of income qua said AY on 26.10.2015; that 18.06.2019 intimation under Section 143(1) of 'the Income Tax Act, 1961' ['IT Act' for the sake of brevity] accepting the return of income filed by the assessee / writ petitioner was sent to the writ petitioner; that thereafter on 12.09.2019 there was a survey in the place of business of the writ petitioner and to be noted, this survey is under Section 133A of IT Act; that thereafter the writ petitioner retracted the statement given in the survey and this is on 29.01.2020; that post retraction, on 19.01.2021 the impugned notice under Section 148 of IT Act came to be issued; that return of income pursuant to impugned notice was filed by the writ petitioner on 22.01.2021; that thereafter on 30.09.2021 a notice under Section 143(2) of the IT Act was issued by the assessing officer giving the reasons that reopening [on writ petitioner's request]; that the writ petitioner on 15.10.2021 filed objections to the reasons for reopening; that on 01.11.2021 further notice was issued by the assessing officer under Section 143(2) r/w. Section 129 of IT Act for proceeding with reassessment; that thereafter the captioned writ petition has been filed assailing the impugned notice ie., notice dated 19.01.2021 under Section 148 of IT Act.

5. As already alluded to supra, learned Counsel for writ petitioner notwithstanding very many averments and several grounds raised in the writ affidavit now restricts his prayer to only one point and that one point turns on GKN Driveshafts principle.

6. Learned Revenue Counsel pointed out that there is no infirmity in the Section 148 notice ie., the impugned notice but the point is GKN Driveshafts principle consists of four stages {i) assessee asking for reasons for reopening, ii) Department giving reasons for reopening, iii) assessee filing objections to such reasons and i