Allowed

Supermax Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CIRCLE-3(4) and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC23 Feb 2022WP/364/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court held that the Department admitted the assessee fully disclosed material facts in Form 3CD and considered them, barring reopening as no non-disclosure existed.

What did the court decide?

Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act dated 30.03.2021 and consequential notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) quashed.

Supermax Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

911-WP-364-2022.doc

¶2

1 / 3

¶3

Digitally signed by PURTI PURTIPRASAD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY PRASAD PARAB PARAB Date: ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION 2022.02.24 10:51:22 +0530

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 364 OF 2022

¶5

Supermax Personal Care Pvt. Ltd.

¶6

….Petitioner

¶7

 V/s.

¶8

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Circle 3(4) and Ors.…Respondents

¶9

----

¶10

Mr. Nishant Thakkar a/w Mr. Hiten Chande i/b Lumiere Law Partners for
Petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents.

¶12

 ----

¶13

 CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &
N. J. JAMADAR, JJ.
 DATED : 23rd FEBRUARY, 2022

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

1.Petitioner received a notice dated 30th March, 2021 under
Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) stating that there are
reasons 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.

¶16

2.Petitioner was provided reasons recorded for re-opening which

¶17

we have considered with the assistance of the counsel.

¶18

3.This was a case where the assessee had filed return on 30th
November, 2014 for A.Y. 2014-15 and after scrutiny assessment for A.Y.
2014-15 was completed on 31st October, 2018. According to the
Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) who has recorded the reasons for re-

¶19

Purti Parab

¶20

911-WP-364-2022.doc

¶21

2 / 3

¶22

opening, petitioner had in the Form 3CD Report disclosed that it had paid
an amount of Rs.4,47,83,700/- received as employee contribution after the
due date and hence was not allowable as deduction. As it has not been
disallowed in the assessment, income to the extent of Rs.4,47,83,700/- has
escaped assessment. In the order rejecting petitioner’s objections,
respondent admit that the information had been reported by petitioner in
Form 3CD but was not considered during the earlier assessment
proceedings. Therefore, admittedly there has not been non-disclosure. As
per the notice, re-opening is proposed after the expiry of four years from the
end of the relevant assessment year and since the assessment under Section
143(3) of the Act has been completed, there is a bar on re-opening unless
respondent is able to show that there was failure on the part of petitioner to
truly and fully disclose all material facts required for the assessment. Since
in the reasons for re-opening as well as in the order disposing the
objections, it is admitted that information had been reported by petitioner in
the Form 3CD, there is no question of non-disclosure. Therefore, re-opening
itself is barred.

¶23

4.Accordingly, petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause – (a)
which reads as under :

¶24

(a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of
Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 and/or
Article 227 of the Constitution of India calling for the records
of the Petitioner’s case and after examining the legality and
validity thereof quash and set aside the Impugned Notice

¶25

Purti Parab

¶26

911-WP-364-2022.doc

¶27

3 / 3

¶28

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 issued
under section 143(2) (Exhibit “M”) and consequential notices
dated 3 December 2021 (Exhibit “Q”) and 17 December 2021
issued under section 142(1) of the Act (Exhibit “S”).

¶29

5.Petition disposed.

¶30

(N. J. JAMADAR, J.)(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

¶31

Purti Parab

Supermax Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CIRCLE-3(4) and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Supermax Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CIRCLE-3(4) and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaipur Jewels Global Ltd. (Successor in Interest of Jaipur Jewels) Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 19(1) and 4 Ors.

Jaipur Jewels Global (Successor in Interest of Jaipur Jewels a Partnership Firm) Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 19 (1) and 3 Ors.

Jaipur Jewels Global Limited (Successor in Interest of Jaipur Jewels a Partnership Firm) Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle 19(1) and 3 Ors.

Systematix Shares and Stocks (India) Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- 4 (2) (1) Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Fedex Express Transportation and Supply Chain Services(I) Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Fedex Express Transportation and Supply Chain Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai and 3 Ors.