RCF Clarifies Delay in Income Tax Demand Disclosure, Reaffirms Compliance Commitment
Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers has explained the delay in disclosing a ₹4.36 crore income tax demand, citing unavoidable circumstances including an officer traveling and holiday impact. The company has contested the demands across three assessment years through appeals and rectification applications, maintaining that no future monetary outflows are expected as the demands are considered erroneous.

*this image is generated using AI for illustrative purposes only.
Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited has provided additional clarification regarding the delay in disclosing an income tax demand notice totaling ₹4,36,49,106 from the Income Tax Department. The company received the demand notice via email and made the disclosure under Regulation 30 of SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015.
Explanation for Disclosure Delay
The company has addressed concerns raised by BSE Limited regarding the timing of the disclosure. According to the company's response dated March 21, 2026, the delay occurred because the email from the Income Tax Department was received by a key responsible officer on his personal email while he was traveling, making the email inaccessible to him initially.
| Timeline Details: | Information |
|---|---|
| Email Receipt: | Officer's personal email during travel |
| Holiday Impact: | March 19, 2026 was a holiday |
| Email Access: | March 20, 2026 at 11:00 AM |
| Disclosure Made: | Promptly after email access |
The company emphasized that March 19, 2026 was a holiday, which further contributed to the delay. Upon accessing the email on March 20, 2026 at around 11:00 AM, the company promptly made the necessary disclosure to stock exchanges.
Income Tax Demand Breakdown
The demand notice covers disallowances and additions made during assessments for three assessment years. The company has provided detailed information about each component of the demand:
| Assessment Year: | Amount (₹) | Nature of Demand |
|---|---|---|
| 2020-21: | 19,11,374 | Penalty on education cess claimed due to retrospective amendment |
| 2021-22: | 2,14,47,412 | Penalty on disallowed adjustments |
| 2023-24: | 2,02,90,320 | Tax on erroneous demand from wrong disallowance |
| Total: | 4,36,49,106 | Complete demand amount |
Company's Response and Legal Actions
Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers has taken proactive legal measures to contest the income tax demands. For AY 2020-21, the company filed a rectification application on March 17, 2023, and subsequently filed an appeal before CIT(A) on March 24, 2023, which remains pending.
For AY 2021-22, an appeal was filed before CIT(A) on July 27, 2023, addressing the penalty imposed on disallowed adjustments. Regarding AY 2023-24, the company is in the process of filing a rectification application for the alleged demand, which it considers erroneous due to wrong disallowances.
Commitment to Regulatory Compliance
The company has clarified that it does not intend to withhold any material information from investors and that the information was disclosed as soon as it became available. The delay was described as unintentional and due to unavoidable circumstances.
Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers has assured that it maintains adequate systems and procedures in place and reiterated its commitment to timely disclosures in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. The company maintains confidence that it does not anticipate any future monetary outflows as the underlying demands are expected to be deleted or rectified by the appropriate authorities.
Historical Stock Returns for Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers
| 1 Day | 5 Days | 1 Month | 6 Months | 1 Year | 5 Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| +1.11% | -1.84% | -9.69% | -23.49% | -12.80% | +47.74% |
How might the pending appeals and rectification applications impact RCF's financial statements and cash flow in the coming quarters?
What measures will RCF implement to prevent similar disclosure delays, especially regarding critical communications received on personal emails?
Could this income tax dispute signal broader regulatory scrutiny of the fertilizer sector's tax compliance practices?

































