O R D E R

An assessment order dated 31.12.2022 for assessment year 2021-

2022 is challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner states that it is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of yarn and fabric. During the financial year 2020-2021, it is stated that an application was filed by the petitioner and Sri Cheran Synthetics India Private Limited (Cheran Synthetics) before the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai (the NCLT Chennai) in CP (CAA) Nos.63 & 66/CHE/2021, seeking approval for a scheme of amalgamation. Under the said scheme of amalgamation, the petitioner states that Cheran Synthetics was merged with the petitioner and dissolved without being wound up. The petitioner also states that the appointed date under the scheme is 01.04.2020. The NCLT Chennai sanctioned the scheme on 18.04.2022 and the scheme became effective from 01.04.2020 upon such sanction. Since the last date for filing return of income was in March 2022, it is stated that the petitioner was constrained to file the standalone return of income on 14.03.2022.

2. By relying on Section 170A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Income Tax Act], the petitioner states that it had six months from the end of the month in which the NCLT Chennai issued the order to file a modified return by giving effect to amalgamation. However, the Income Tax Business Application [ITBA] portal had not been operationalized to enable the filing of such modified return.

3. Meanwhile, the first respondent issued a notice under Section

143(2) of the Income Tax Act and further notices under Section 142(1) thereof. The petitioner replied thereto. In addition, the petitioner states that the modified return was filed manually since the portal was not enabled for filing such return electronically. After issuing a show cause notice on 27.12.2022, it is submitted that the assessment order was issued within two days after the petitioner replied to the show cause notice. The present writ petition was filed in the above facts and circumstances.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the assessment order primarily on the ground that the consolidated / modified return of the petitioner, after the amalgamation, should have been the sole basis of scrutiny assessment and the assessment order. By pointing out that the appointed date of the scheme is 01.04.2020, he submits that the proceedings culminating in the assessment order were initiated after orders were issued by the NCLT Chennai to sanction the scheme.

5. He next submitted that the assessment proceedings were concluded hastily and this is evident from the dates of the show cause notice, the reply thereto and the impugned assessment order. By referring to the show cause notice dated 27.12.2022, learned counsel submits that said show cause notice deals with about 53 proposed additions. The petitioner replied thereto on 29.12.2022 and the impugned assessment order came to be issued within 2 days thereafter.

6. By referring to the impugned assessment order, learned counsel submits that the said impugned assessment order refers to the pre-

amalgamation standalone financial statement of the petitioner at certain places and also refers to the consolidated return of income at others. He also points out that the impugned assessment order refers to the consolidated return of the petitioner as a non-est return and thereafter, proceeds to examine such consolidated return along with the standalone return and balance sheet. For illustrative purposes, learned counsel pointed out the discrepancies in the impugned assessment order. With reference to the additions under the head of payment of commission to foreign entities, he points out that the order contains a reference to a sum of Rs.1,32,42,378/- while discussing the show cause notice, whereas it records a finding that a payment of Rs.13,24,42,378/- was made. According to learned counsel, these errors crept-in because of the hasty manner in which the impugned assessmen