2017 (3) TMI 113 - HC - Income Tax

Order 142(2A) appointing Special Auditor by AO - Held that - One of the requirement for exercising the powers under Section 142(2A) that the AO must be satisfied in interest of revenue, the account is required to be audited by the Special Auditor is concerned, it is required to be noted that considering the amended provision of Section 142(2A) of the Act which has come into force w.e.f. 1.6.2013, the special Auditor can be appointed if at any stage of the proceedings before him, the AO having regard to the nature and complexity of the account of the assessee and the interest of the revenue, is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do, he may direct the account to be verified by the Special Auditor. Therefore, having regard to the nature and complexity of the account, if the AO is satisfied and / or is of the opinion that accounts are required to be verified by the Special Auditor, he may pass such order. Therefore, on the aforesaid ground that the AO has not stated that the accounts are required to be audited by Special Auditor in the interest of Revenue, the impugned order is not required to be quashed and set aside, more particularly, when it is stated in the order that looking to the complexity and the multiplicity of transactions, account are required to be verified by the Special Auditor. Considering the object and purpose of Section 142(2A), it appears that the accounts are required to be audited by the Special Auditor under Section 142(2A) with a view to facilitate the AO in passing the impugned order. Thus no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the AO.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Insufficient opportunity.
2. Conditions for the appointment of Special Auditor under Section 142(2A) not satisfied.
3. Appointment of Special Auditor to extend the period of limitation for block assessment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Insufficient Opportunity:
The petitioner argued that they were not given sufficient time to respond to the notice for the appointment of a Special Auditor. The notice dated 11.11.2016 was served on 17.11.2016, and the petitioner requested 15 days to respond, but the Assessing Officer (AO) only granted 10 days. The petitioner contended that this did not allow them enough time to file a detailed reply, thus breaching the principles of natural justice. The court, however, found that the AO had given the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and the impugned order was passed only after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner.

2. Conditions for Appointment of Special Auditor under Section 142(2A) Not Satisfied:
The petitioner contended that the conditions for the appointment of a Special Auditor under Section 142(2A) were not met. They argued that their accounts were already audited and there was no need for another audit. The court referred to Section 142(2A) and noted that the AO is authorized to direct an audit if the accounts are complex and there are multiple transactions. The court emphasized that the purpose of a special audit is to assist the AO in determining the correct taxable income. The court found that the AO had justified the need for a special audit due to the complexity and multiplicity of transactions, and the impugned order was passed after obtaining the necessary approval from higher authorities.

3. Appointment of Special Auditor to Extend the Period of Limitation for Block Assessment:
The petitioner argued that the appointment of the Special Auditor was a tactic to extend the period of limitation for completing the block assessment. The court, however, found that the AO had ample material connecting the petitioner with the requisitioned documents and the persons involved. The court noted that the AO's decision to appoint a Special Auditor was based on the complexity and multiplicity of transactions, which justified the need for a special audit. The court also highlighted that the purpose of the special audit is to facilitate the AO in arriving at the correct taxable income and that the petitioner would have the opportunity to respond to the special auditor's report.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the AO had followed the legal provisions under Section 142(2A) and had given the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The court found that the conditions for the appointment of a Special Auditor were satisfied, and the AO's decision was justified due to the complexity and multiplicity of transactions. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the AO's order for a special audit.