हिंदी

Asian Paints vs Income Tax: Bombay High Court Quashed Reassessment Orders

Asian Paints, Income Tax, Mumbai High Court

The Bombay High Court in the case Asian Paints Ltd. V The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax observed and has quashed the order of reassessment as the assessee, Asian Paints, wherein disclosing fully or truly all facts material and which are necessary for the assessment.

The division bench comprising of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Valmiki SA Menezes observed that there being no such reason which disclose what material or fact was not disclosed by the assessee. In the present case, the petitioner (assessee) is a public limited company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling paints, varnish, primer, etc. Therefore, the business is being carried out on through various dealers who purchase the goods from the petitioner and sell them to the ultimate customers on a principal to principal basis.

However, the petitioner filed a return of income for the assessment year 2014–2015, which declared that a total income of Rs. 1403.68 crores, which was subsequently revised to Rs. 1382.57 crores. Therefore, the case of the petitioner was being selected for scrutiny assessment, during which a show cause notice was issued dated October 7th, 2016 by AO, which requires it for submitting the details of the advertising and the sales promotion expenses.

Before the Court, the petitioner urged that there is was no failure to disclose fully and truly any material fact necessary for the assessment, as the same being a condition which is precedent for reopening the assessment in terms of Section 148. Further, it has been contended by the department that the reassessment proceedings would not be held to be bad as the AO while passing the order of assessment and had not expressed any specific opinion with regards to the expenditure incurred on “Colour Idea Stores. Thus, the reassessment proceedings could not be scuttled. Accordingly, it has been held by the court that the notice does not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement of section 147 and the court held the same to be unsustainable.

Recommended For You

About the Author: Legally Speaking Desk