IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4453 of 2020 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No √

==========================================================

ZYDUS INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, JYOTINDRA BHOGILAL GOR (DIRECTOR)

Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(1)(2)

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR. R.K.PATEL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR DARSHAN R PATEL(8486) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS. MAITHILI MEHTA, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Date : 02/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI)

1 Heard learned advocate Mr.R.K.Patel, learned Senior Counsel appearing with learned advocate Mr.Darshan Patel for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms.Maithili Mehta for the respondent.

2 Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms.Maithili Mehta, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent.

3 The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred assailing the correctness and validity of the Notice of Demand dated 22.01.2020 at Rs.5,02,30,558/- issued under Section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short) along with the communication dated 23.01.2020.

4 The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under:

4.1 The writ petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is inter alia engaged in the development, operation and maintenance of Special Economic Zone.

4.2 The petitioner filed Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 on 24.09.2012. It is the case of the petitioner that on the basis of full disclosure in the Return of Income, along with necessary annexures and Audit Report, the Assessing Officer issued Scrutiny Notice on 16.09.2014 on 30 different points for processing the assessment.

4.3 It is further the case of the petitioner that while issuing notice for Scrutiny Assessment, one of the point was with regard to distributed profit to the tune of Rs.28,50,00,000/- on which tax was not paid in view of the provisions under Section 115 0 (6) of the Act. On consideration of explanation and evidence on record, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 4(1)(2) (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent” for short), framed assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.01.2015. The respondent accepted the computation sheet given by the petitioner pertaining to dividend distribution tax showing the amount chargeable to tax at zero.

4.4 It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent vide communication dated 23.01.2020 issued Notice of Demand on 22.01.2020 under Section 156 of the Act, intimating the petitioner that an amount to the tune of Rs.5,02,30,558/- is due towards tax payable for the Assessment Year 2012-13. It is the case of the petitioner that such a Notice of Demand was issued without any proceedings initiated for reassessment.

4.5 Being aggrieved by the Demand Notice issued under Section 156 of the Act, issued without any reassessment procedure, the present writ petition is preferred by the petitioner assailing the Demand Notice issued under Section

156 of the Act.

5 Mr.R.K.Patel, learned Senior Advocate appearing with learned advocate Mr.Darshan Patel for the petitioner, made the following submissions:

5.1 It is submitted that there is full and true disclosure by the petitioner during the course of filing of return as well as when original assessment was framed under Section 143(3) and that during the proceedings there is no outstanding demand pertaining to the Assessment Year 2012-13. It is further submitted that the demand of Rs.5,02,30,