9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6, intimating that the audit work could commence only on 22nd May, 2006 after repeated requests and reminders to the assessee. The time-limit for completion of the special audit was extended for a period of 90 days. The report under s. 142(2A) of the Act was furnished on 4th Sept., 2006. The assessee objected that the report had been filed beyond the time allowed and that therefore, the assessment proceedings were already barred by limitation. The AO relied on the decision in Jagjit Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 468 (P H), rejected the objection of the assessee and completed the assessment. 4. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO in holding that the assessment was within limitati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT, is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. It has been submitted that as held in CIT vs. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf (1978) 113 ITR 589 (Bom), a solitary decision of the Hon'ble High Court. even if it is not of a jurisdictional High Court, is binding on the Tribunal. It has been submitted that as such, the AO rightly applied Jagjit Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, and the assessment is not time-barred. It was submitted that the extension of time became necessary since the assessee never co-operated with the special auditor. 7. We have heard the parties and have perused the record with regard to the issue at hand. The proviso to s. 142(2C) of the Act reads as under: "Provided that the AO may, on an application made in this b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ular dt. 24th July, 1976 throw ample light on the legislative mind behind the enactment of the proviso to s. 142(2C) of the Act. It is only on an application filed by the assessee, that the time may be extended. It is pertinent to mention here that w.e.f. 1st April, 2008, the words "suo motu or" have been inserted in the proviso so as to enable the AO to extend the time of his own accord also, besides where an application has been made by the assessee for extension of time. 11. Now, in Jagjit Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, the Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court has held to the effect that the proviso to s. l42(2C) of the Act makes it clear that the AO may, either on an application made by the assessee and/or for any good and sufficient re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itor. The contents of this reply of the assessee, which runs into 5 pages and 6 paras, have nowhere been rebutted by the AO. Therefore, on facts, Jagjit Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, is not applicable hereto. 12. In Madhuvana House Building Co-operative Society vs. Asstt. CIT, it has been held that since no application for extension of time was made by the assessee in that case, the extension of time granted by the AO on the application of the auditor (as is the fact herein also), the extension of time was not valid. 13. In Dy. CIT vs. Popular Automobiles, Madhuvana House Building Co-operative Society vs. Asstt. CIT was followed in holding similarly. 14. Similar is the ratio of Mahakoshal Engineers Contractors Co. (P) Ltd. vs. Asstt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
