2009 (6) TMI 1 - HC - Income Tax

Special Audit under section 142(2A) Assessee contended that the Assistant Commissioner has erred in issuing the order for conducting special audit without considering the response to the show cause notice issued to assessee, in the spirit contemplated by law, thereby violating the principles of natural justice in directing Special Audit of its accounts, contrary to the spirit of the first Proviso to Section 142 (2A) of the Act. The issuance of show cause notice by the Assistant Commissioner was a mere formality to facilitate the Special Audit of the petitioner s accounts which was not otherwise warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case when nothing had been hidden by the Authority in its accounts and the Balance Sheets made available by the Authority to the Assistant Commissioner since the assessee had failed to explain the complexity in the accounts pointed out by the Assessing Officer in the show cause notice the order of the AC u/s 142(2A) justified.

Issues:
1. Special Audit directed under Section 142 (2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Allegations of incomplete and unreliable accounts by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.
3. Petitioner's challenge to the order of Special Audit.
4. Violation of principles of natural justice and procedural irregularities.
5. Consideration of objections and decision-making process by the authorities.
6. Compliance with legal requirements for Special Audit.

Special Audit under Section 142 (2A):
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu, directed a Special Audit of the accounts of the petitioner, Jammu Development Authority, under Section 142 (2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This decision was based on the Authority's incomplete and unreliable accounts, as highlighted in the show cause notice. The Authority failed to provide satisfactory explanations regarding the assets, funds utilization, fixed assets, and land plots in its Balance Sheet, leading to the need for a Special Audit.

Allegations of Incomplete Accounts:
The Assistant Commissioner found the accounts provided by the Authority to be incomplete and unreliable, hindering the accurate determination of taxable income for the relevant year. Issues such as the nature of assets, sources of funds, fixed asset values, and land plots were raised, indicating discrepancies in the financial reporting. This assessment prompted the direction for a Special Audit to ensure a thorough examination by a Chartered Accountant.

Petitioner's Challenge and Procedural Irregularities:
The Petitioner-Authority challenged the order of Special Audit, alleging a violation of natural justice principles. It argued that the Assistant Commissioner did not consider its response to the show cause notice adequately before issuing the order. The Authority contended that the Special Audit was unwarranted, as it had not concealed any information in its accounts, and the issuance of the show cause notice was merely a formality.

Consideration of Objections and Decision-Making Process:
The Commissioner of Income Tax reviewed the objections raised by the Authority and assessed the decision to conduct a Special Audit in detail. It was observed that the Authority's responses did not address the complexity in the accounts pointed out by the Assessing Officer, nor did they clarify issues related to assets, income recognition, and accounting standards compliance. Both officers of the Income Tax Department made an objective decision after evaluating the Authority's responses to the show cause notice.

Compliance with Legal Requirements for Special Audit:
The High Court analyzed the records, including the show cause notice, the Authority's response, and the orders passed by the relevant officers. It was noted that the Authority had not provided satisfactory replies to the queries raised in the show cause notice, indicating a lack of cooperation in addressing the raised issues. The Court found no merit in the contention that the order for Special Audit was rushed or that the responses were not duly considered, ultimately dismissing the writ petition for lack of grounds for interference.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the procedural aspects, legal considerations, and decision-making processes involved in the case of the directed Special Audit under the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the importance of compliance, transparency, and adherence to natural justice principles in such matters.

← Previous Next →