INDO COLCHEM LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court seeking Court to issue a writ of mandamus and/or certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order to quash and set aside the notice dtd. 27/3/2021 issued by the respondent No.1 for assessment year 2014-15 and the assessment order dtd. 30/3/2022 passed by the respondent, on the ground of the same being arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of principles of natural justice.

(2.) The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Dyes and Dyes intermediates and trading in chemicals. It filed its return on income for the assessment year 2014-15 on 31/10/2014, which was selected first for scrutiny and a detailed questionnaire with 42 queries was issued by the Assessing Officer on 5/7/2016. The petitioner submitted the required details vide various communications and the original assessment by way of scrutiny assessment under Ses. 143(3) of the Act has been finalised, where more particularly one of the queries relating to TDS deductions was raised. The petitioner submitted its reply and upon being satisfied, no addition was made during the scrutiny assessment. One of the grievance on the part of the petitioner is that it received a notice dtd. 27/3/2021 under Ses. 148 for reassessment under Sec. 147 of the Act for assessment year 2014-15. The reasons raised two issues; (a) TDS on freight expenses of Rs.5,48,74,465.00 and (b) Disallowance of excise duty expense claimed in the profit and loss account. Objections were raised to the said notice, wherein it pointed out that the reopening was beyond the period of four years and there being no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary and as all issues have been already gone into during the original assessment proceedings, it is a mere change of opinion.

(3.) Notice dtd. 1/2/2022 (received by courier on 4/2/2022) in related to that no response of the petitioner had been received and the notice had been issued on the ground that no specific query or details relating to the issues mentioned in the reasons recorded for reopening was sought.