9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2021 - - - Dated:- 12-10-2021 - Honourable Ms. Justice Sonia Gokani And Honourable Mr. Justice Rajendra M. Sareen For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hardik V Vora ORAL ORDER PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI The petitioner Company is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of Infrastructure Development, Mining and Infrastructure for power transmission and distribution as well as in the Real Estate business. As part of the infrastructure construction and development operations, the company undertakes highway projects on BOT, EPC and HAM on the basis of Mining Project on MDO basis. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that it had filed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he reply have been submitted along with the relevant documents. It is the case of the petitioner that it had raised various contentions including the objection of the audit report in form 10CCB having been uploaded electronically along with Profit and Loss accounts and his contract from Government of each undertaking being eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA (4). It was also submitted to the concerned officer that the petitioner company maintained separate books of accounts for 80- IA and 35AD projects in SAP based ERP system which according to the petitioner,is an elaborate, comprehensive and containing the robust accounting system. The books of accounts were duly audited by the qualified Chartered Accountant and while filing the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the transactions and specialised nature of business, and their impact on the income and in the interest of revenue, would lead him to get the account of the petitioner audited by an accountant, as defined under Section 288(2) for the AY 2018-2019 and nominated by Pr. CIT (Central), Ahmedabad. The hearing for the said purpose have been fixed on 27.9.2021. 9. The notice had been replied to by the petitioner. His grievance is that he was granted only one working day i.e on 24.9.2021 as 25th and 26th fell on a weekend. He received the notice and when he represented his case , instead of considering his version to proposed the reference for in the Special audit of account under Section 142(2-A) of the I.T Act. It appears to be an attempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d proper be granted in the interest of justice; e. To provide for the cost of this petition. 10. We have heard extensively learned Advocate Mr. Vora who has taken us through the entire material. According to him, the twin conditions necessary for invoking the powers under Section 142(2A) of the I.T Act are missing. He has also urged that there has been a violation of principles of natural justice as giving of opportunity only for a day before reference to the Special Audit would amount to non-availment of an opportunity. He has also further urged that what the Assessing Officer himself ought to have done he has chosen to get it done through the Special Auditor which not only would put the present petitioner to the jeopardy but the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
