9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act who is nominated either by the Commissioner and such nominated auditor is permitted to furnish an audit report in the prescribed form. When the said provision is read with Explanation below Section 288(2) of the Act, it is apparent that the said nominated auditor is not expected to be in a relationship of an agent of the Assessee or in any other capacity except as a nominee of the Commissioner. It is perhaps for this reason the proviso to sub-Section 2C of Section 142 specifically states that the extension of time for submitting the audit report can be made by the AO “on an application made in this behalf by the Assessee” If the legislative intent was to permit the application to be made by the auditor nominated by the Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der proviso to Section 142(2C) of the Act could be raised and considered? 3. Whether the AO is competent to extend the period for filing the audit report on the expressed request of the nominated auditor under proviso to section 142(2C) read with section 142(2A) of the Act? 3. As far as the first question is concerned, learned counsel for the Revenue has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) and this Court in M. B. Lal v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2005) 279 ITR 298 (Del). The learned counsel has also referred to Section 142(2C) of the Act and pointed out that the Assessing Officer ( AO ) could have extended the time to submit the audit report. It is su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... National Thermal Power (supra) suggests that the powers of the ITAT are wide enough to even consider a point which may not have been urged before the CIT (A) as long as the said question requires to be examined in the interest of justice. In that view of the matter, the Court is unable to agree with the counsel for the Revenue that in the present case the ITAT exceeded its jurisdiction in examining the question whether the AO was justified in extending the time for the auditor nominated under Section 142 (2A) to submit the audit report. The Court accordingly declines to frame any question on this issue. 6. Turning to question concerning the request made to the AO for extending the time for filing audit report, it requires to be noticed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so to sub-Section 2C of Section 142 specifically states that the extension of time for submitting the audit report can be made by the AO on an application made in this behalf by the Assessee If the legislative intent was to permit the application to be made by the auditor nominated by the Commissioner, that would have been expressly provided for in the proviso to Section 142 (2C) of the Act. If the submissions of learned counsel for the Revenue were to be accepted, then it would mean that the application can be made not only by the Assessee but by a Chartered Accountant of the Assessee nominated by the Commissioner in terms of Section 142 (2A) of the Act. The Court declines to do so. Consequently, the Court declines to frame a question on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
