2020 (10) TMI 142 - AT - Income Tax

Special audit u/s 142(2A) - extension of 60 days for conduct of special audit - CIT, Central-II for granting extension for the further period is legally valid are not? - HELD THAT - This issue stands covered by the order of the Tribunal in the case of sister concern i.e. M/s. Soul Space Projects Ltd. 2020 (6) TMI 696 - ITAT DELHI wherein as held Punchnama for the search was issued in the name of various entities as per Annexure-1 which included names of the assessee and M/s Soul Space Projects Ltd. Commissioner has issued common letter for both the entities under which the so-called extension of 60 days was given for conduct of special audit. In the entirety of above facts and circumstances, where under proviso to section 142(2C) jurisdiction was upon the AO to examine the circumstances and after due application of mind pass an order granting extension for conduct of special audit under section 142(2A) and as no extension has been given by AO but by the Commissioner and the AO has only conveyed the approval, therefore, we hold that the grant of extension by the Commissioner is beyond the powers enshrined under the statute. Accordingly, the assessment completed after the due date is held to be void-ab-initio. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdictional issue regarding the validity of the order passed under section 153A as barred by limitation.
2. Validity of the extension granted for completing the special audit under section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Whether the disallowances/additions made by the Assessing Officer were beyond the jurisdiction and scope of assessment under section 153A.
4. Validity of the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer due to the late service of notice under section 143(2).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdictional Issue Regarding Limitation:
The assessee argued that the order dated 10.08.2010 passed under section 153A was barred by limitation as per section 153B(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The audit conducted under section 142(2A) was not required because the Assessing Officer did not point out any complexity in the books of accounts before issuing the audit directions. Additionally, the extended time period allowed for the special audit was invalid because it was granted by the Commissioner instead of the Assessing Officer as required under section 142(2C).

2. Validity of Extension for Special Audit:
The core issue was whether the extension for the special audit granted by the Commissioner was legally valid. The Tribunal referred to the facts of the case, including the sequence of events from the filing of the return of income to the issuance of notices and the conduct of the special audit. The Tribunal noted that the extension of 60 days for completing the special audit was granted by the Commissioner instead of the Assessing Officer, which was beyond the powers vested by the statute. According to the proviso to section 142(2C), only the Assessing Officer has the jurisdiction to grant such an extension. The Tribunal held that the extension granted by the Commissioner was null and void, making the assessment completed after the due date void-ab-initio.

3. Disallowances/Additions Beyond Jurisdiction:
The assessee contended that various disallowances and additions made by the Assessing Officer were beyond the jurisdiction and scope of assessment under section 153A since they were not based on any incriminating materials found during the search. However, since the Tribunal decided the jurisdictional issue in favor of the assessee, it did not adjudicate this issue on merits, rendering it academic in nature.

4. Validity of the Assessment Due to Late Service of Notice:
The assessee argued that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer was invalid because the notice under section 143(2) was served after the prescribed time period. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue separately as the primary jurisdictional issue had already been resolved in favor of the assessee, rendering the assessment void-ab-initio.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee and dismissed the appeals of the Revenue. The assessment orders were held to be void-ab-initio due to the invalid extension granted by the Commissioner for the special audit, which was beyond the statutory powers. Consequently, the Tribunal did not need to adjudicate the other issues on merits. The decisions in Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-09 were aligned with the decision for Assessment Year 2002-03.

← Previous Next →