High Court Of Allahabad
Uttaranchal Welfare Society vs. CIT & ORS.
Sections 142(2A)
M. Katju & R.S. Tripathi, JJ.
Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 532 of 2004
15th April, 2004
Counsel Appeared
Dhruv Agrawal, for the Petitioner : A.N. Mahajan, for the Respondents
JUDGMENT
By the court :
Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned counsel for the Department. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the appointment of respondent No. 4 as special auditor by the CIT, Ghaziabad, under s. 142(2A) of the IT Act.
We have gone through the averments in the writ petition. From a perusal of Annex. IX to the writ petition it appears that there are allegations of huge misappropriation of the society’s funds directly or indirectly made by the assessee in favour of close relatives of the founder members of the society. Also fictitious expenses appear to have been claimed under the different heads of expenses debited in the income and expenditure account. The donations received by the assessee are also to be examined in the light of its proper utilisation for charitable purposes. The Addl. CIT, Range-2, Ghaziabad, was of the opinion that in the absence of the books of accounts, prima facie the income of property of the society is indirectly diversion of the funds for the benefit of persons referred to in s. 13(3) of the IT Act. The Addl. CIT, therefore, recommended that the AO may consider the case for special audit under s. 142(2A) of the IT Act keeping in view the suspicion that the funds of the society are being siphoned off by the members/trustees.
In our opinion, the view taken by the Addl. CIT cannot be said to be arbitrary. This Court does not sit as a Court of appeal over the opinion of the AO under s. 142(2A) as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Jhunjhunwala Vanaspati Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (2004) 266 ITR 657 (All). In the aforesaid decision one of us (Hon’ble M. Katju, J) has considered s. 142(2A) in great detail and has held that there should be judicial restraint in interfering with such administrative directions. This view has been followed by another Division Bench of this Court in Pushpak Jyoti vs. State of U.P. (Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 52499 of 2002, dt. 11th Dec., 2003) in which the theory of judicial restraint while reviewing administrative decisions has been discussed in great detail. Following the aforesaid decision this petition is dismissed.
[Citation : 268 ITR 214]
