JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the writ petitioner on the file of the second respondent and to quash the impugned notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2021 in DIN and Notice No.ITBA/AST/S/148/2020-21/1032067512(1) for the Assessment Year 2014-15.)

1. In the captioned main writ petition a notice dated 31.03.2021 being a notice under Section 148 of the 'Income Tax Act, 1961' [hereinafter 'IT Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity] issued by the second respondent regarding 'assessment year 2014-15' [hereinafter 'said AY' for the sake of convenience and clarity] qua writ petitioner has been assailed.

2. This Court, with the consent of learned counsel for writ petitioner and Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax (Revenue Counsel), who accepted notice on behalf of all the three respondents, took up and heard out the main writ petition owing to the narrow compass on which the captioned main matter turns.

3. Short facts shorn of elaboration or in other words, facts that are imperative for appreciating this order are that the writ petitioner filed return of income qua said AY on 25.09.2014 under Section 139(1) of IT Act; that the original assessment order (based on such return) was made by the Assessing Officer vide an order dated 22.12.2016; that thereafter the impugned notice under Section 148 of IT Act came to be issued; that impugned notice reverted the matter to the earlier part of Chapter XIV of IT Act and therefore a notice dated 23.11.2021 being a notice under Section 142(1) of IT Act with an annexure came to be issued; that the writ petitioner on 07.12.2021 filed return of income in response to the impugned notice; that the writ petitioner also sent in its electronic response on 13.12.2021; that a speaking order came to be made by the first respondent on 24.12.2021; that another notice under Section 142(1) of IT Act came to be issued by the first respondent for continuing the reassessment; that the writ petitioner uploaded an e-response on 04.01.2022 inter alia seeking to stop the proceedings of re-assessment and also taking exceptions to the speaking order dated 24.12.2021 made by the first respondent; that the reassessment is pursuant to impugned notice and therefore, the captioned writ petition has been presented in this Court on 27.01.2022 assailing the impugned notice.

4. This Court, having set out the factual matrix in a nutshell containing facts that are imperative for appreciating this order and the trajectory the matter has taken thus far now proceeds to set out the rival contentions.

5. Learned counsel for writ petitioner in his campaign against the impugned notice, notwithstanding very many averments in the writ affidavit and notwithstanding very many grounds raised in the writ affidavit made pointed submissions, a summation of which is as follows:

(a) the impugned notice is hit by limitation as it has been issued after four years had elapsed from the end of the said AY;

(b) absent fresh / tangible material impugned notice is bad;

(c) the impugned notice is based on audit objection and this cannot be construed as valid information for assuming jurisdiction under Section 148 of IT Act;

(d) the objections raised by the writ petitioner have not been considered;

(e) the second respondent has not chosen to examine the applicability of Rule 8 of 'Income Tax Rules, 1962' (hereinafter 'IT Rules' for the sake of convenience and clarity) to examine the possibility of disallowance under Section 14-A of IT Act qua computation of total taxable income while completing the original scrutiny assessment and therefore, the impugned notice cannot now resort to the explanation qua this provision of law.

6. In support of some of the aforementioned points, learned counsel for writ petitioner pressed into service certain case laws and the same will be discussed infra elsewhere in the latter portion o