9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 362 - HC - Income TaxSpecial audit u/s 142(2A) - Violation of principal of natural justice - Assessment order barred by limitation period - Held that - evident that the copy of the letter dated 08.03.2004 written by the A.O. was never served on the assessee. However, the CIT has granted the approval for issuance of the direction for special audit under the said provision. Had an opportunity given, the proper explanation might have been given by the assessee but that was not done, which is the violation of the principles of natural justice. Income-tax Officer gets jurisdiction to pass an assessment order if it is within limitation. If the assessment is barred by time, then any decision on merits would be of no consequence, and for the same reason, the decision, on merits, by the appellate authorities would also be of no consequence and would have to be ignored - underlying principle of natural justice, evolved under the common law, is to check arbitrary exercise of power by the State or its functionaries - Therefore, the principle implies a duty to act fairly - These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made; they do not supplant the law but supplement it - Order of Tribunal and lower authorities set aside - Following decisions of Sahara India (Firm) vs CIT 2008 (4) TMI 4 - Supreme Court , Rajesh Kumar vs. Deputy CIT 2006 (11) TMI 135 - SUPREME Court and Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, Central-I v. Escorts Farms P. Ltd. 1989 (7) TMI 64 - DELHI High Court - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of directions for Special Audit under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Applicability of the Supreme Court's ruling in Rajesh Kumar vs. Dy. CIT. 3. Correct interpretation of Section 145(3) regarding the rejection of accounts and additional income. 4. Interpretation of Section 10 concerning the computation of total income for exempted persons. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Directions for Special Audit under Section 142(2A): The Tribunal was questioned on its legal correctness in not considering the invalidity in the directions dated 09.11.2004 by the Assessing Officer (AO) for a Special Audit under Section 142(2A), which allegedly rendered the assessment order itself vitiated in law. The appellant argued that the AO did not serve the letter dated 08.03.2004 on the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice. The approval for the special audit was granted without giving the assessee an opportunity to explain discrepancies, which the appellant claimed was a violation of natural justice as established in the cases of Sahara India (Firm) vs. CIT and Rajesh Kumar vs. Dy. CIT. The court observed that the AO must form an opinion based on objective criteria and not subjective satisfaction, and the approval from higher authorities must reflect an application of mind to the facts of the case. 2. Applicability of Supreme Court's Ruling in Rajesh Kumar vs. Dy. CIT: The Tribunal was also questioned on whether it correctly applied the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar vs. Dy. CIT, which mandates that the principles of natural justice must be observed even in the absence of an express provision for a pre-decisional hearing under Section 142(2A). The court emphasized that the exercise of power under Section 142(2A) leads to serious civil consequences, and the requirement of natural justice must be read into the provision. The court found that the AO did not give the assessee an opportunity to explain the discrepancies before the special audit, violating natural justice principles. 3. Correct Interpretation of Section 145(3): The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of accounts and sustained an additional income of Rs. 5 lakhs. The appellant contended that the AO's rejection of accounts under Section 145(3) was not justified. The court noted that the books were properly audited under Section 44AB, and the AO rejected the books only after receiving the special audit report. The court reiterated that the AO must make a genuine attempt to understand the accounts before dubbing them complex and difficult to understand. 4. Interpretation of Section 10: The Tribunal's interpretation of Section 10 was questioned, specifically its finding that persons exempt under Section 10 are not required to compute their total income in accordance with the provisions of the Act, including the computation of depreciation on written down value. The court did not delve deeply into this issue as the primary focus was on the procedural lapses and the principles of natural justice. Conclusion: The court found that the procedural lapses and the violation of natural justice principles in issuing directions for the special audit under Section 142(2A) invalidated the assessment order. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 15.06.2007 by the Tribunal, and quashed the assessment order. The court did not find it necessary to answer the substantial questions of law due to the quashing of the assessment order. The assessee was granted relief accordingly.
|
