Wp/364/2022 Of Supermax Personal Care Pvt. Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-3(4) And 3 Ors

Digitallysigned byPURTIPURTIPRASAD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYPRASADPARABPARABDate:ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION2022.02.2410:51:22+0530 WRIT PETITION NO. 364 OF 2022 Supermax Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. V/s.Deputy Commissioner of Income TaxCircle 3(4) and Ors. ….Petitioner …Respondents ---- Mr. Nishant Thakkar a/w Mr. Hiten Chande i/b Lumiere Law Partners for Petitioner.Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents. ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ. DATED : 23[rd] FEBRUARY, 2022 P.C. : 1.Petitioner received a notice dated 30[th] March, 2021 underSection 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) stating that there arereasons to believe that petitioner’s income chargeable to tax for A.Y. 2014-15 has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. 2.Petitioner was provided reasons recorded for re-opening whichwe have considered with the assistance of the counsel. 3.This was a case where the assessee had filed return on 30[th]November, 2014 for A.Y. 2014-15 and after scrutiny assessment for A.Y.2014-15 was completed on 31[st] October, 2018. According to theJurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) who has recorded the reasons for re- 3. opening, petitioner had in the Form 3CD Report disclosed that it had paidan amount of Rs.4,47,83,700/- received as employee contribution after thedue date and hence was not allowable as deduction. As it has not beendisallowed in the assessment, income to the extent of Rs.4,47,83,700/- hasescaped assessment. In the order rejecting petitioner’s objections,respondent admit that the information had been reported by petitioner inForm 3CD but was not considered during the earlier assessmentproceedings. Therefore, admittedly there has not been non-disclosure. Asper the notice, re-opening is proposed after the expiry of four years from theend of the relevant assessment year and since the assessment under Section143(3) of the Act has been completed, there is a bar on re-opening unlessrespondent is able to show that there was failure on the part of petitioner totruly and fully disclose all material facts required for the assessment. Sincein the reasons for re-opening as well as in the order disposing theobjections, it is admitted that information had been reported by petitioner inthe Form 3CD, there is no question of non-disclosure. Therefore, re-openingitself is barred. 4.Accordingly, petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause – (a)which reads as under : (a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ ofCertiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any otherappropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 and/orArticle 227 of the Constitution of India calling for the recordsof the Petitioner’s case and after examining the legality andvalidity thereof quash and set aside the Impugned Notice dated 30 March 2021 under section 148 of the Act (Exhibit“I”), the Impugned Order dated 3 December 2021 (Exhibit“P”) and, consequential notice dated 29 July 2021 issuedunder section 143(2) (Exhibit “M”) and consequential noticesdated 3 December 2021 (Exhibit “Q”) and 17 December 2021issued under section 142(1) of the Act (Exhibit “S”). 5.Petition disposed. (N. J. JAMADAR, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)