High Court Of Delhi
Usha Housing Development Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Ors.
Section ART. 226, 142(2A)
Asst. Year 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2001-02
D.K. Jain & Madan B. Lokur, JJ.
Civil Writ Petn. No. 5001 of 2003 & Civil Misc. No. 8776 of 2003
19th August, 2003
Counsel Appeared
Vibhu Bhakru with Ms. Ekta Kapil, for the Petitioner : R.D. Jolly, for the Respondents
JUDGMENT
D.K. JAIN, J. :
An order dt. 14th Feb., 2002/21st Feb., 2003, passed by the Asstt. CIT, Central Circle-9, New Delhi (respondent No. 2 herein), directing the petitioner to submit an audit report under s. 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), for the block period 1st April, 1990, to 14th Feb., 2001 (asst. yr. 1991-92 to the asst. yr. 2001-02), is under challenge in this writ petition. Since, in our view, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on preliminary objections/grounds alone, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts, which necessitated the passing of the impugned order. Firstly, in view of the provisions of sub-s. (2C) of s. 142, prescribing the time limit for furnishing of the report under sub-s. (2A), which in any case cannot exceed 180 days from the date on which the direction under sub-s. (2A) is received by the assessee, the writ petition is highly belated. The order under challenge was passed on 21st Feb., 2003, and was admittedly served on the petitioner immediately thereafter and, therefore, the audit report had to be submitted by the third week of August, 2003. But the writ petition was filed on 4th Aug., 2003, when a few days were left for submission of the report. No explanation is forthcoming for the delay. Secondly, it is brought to our notice that since no information has been furnished by the petitioner to the chartered accountant, and the time for submission of the report is about to be over, a report has already been sent by the chartered accountant to the assessee with a copy to the AO, with the result that the present petition is otherwise rendered infructuous.
Moreover, a perusal of the original records, containing the proposal submitted by the AO to the CIT and seeking his approval for ordering audit under s. 142(2A) of the Act in the Usha Group of Companies, which includes the petitioner herein, produced before us, pursuant to our directions on 7th Aug., 2003, leaves little doubt in our mind that the AO had sufficient material before him to record his satisfaction that having regard to the nature and complexity of the accounts of the petitioner and the interests of the Revenue, a special audit under s. 142(2A) of the Act was necessary, we find it difficult to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no application of mind on the part of the AO as regards the nature and complexity of the accounts of the petitioner requiring a special audit and the audit was ordered just to save limitation for completing assessments for the said period. It is not within the province of judicial review to minutely analyse the materials on which the opinion of the AO is rested to find out whether the same is sufficiant for the authority concerned to come to the conclusion that the accounts of an assessee need to be subjected to special audit. Relying on the decisions of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in H.P. State Forest Corporation Ltd. vs. Jt. CIT (2001) 170 CTR (HP) 133 : (2001) 252 ITR 833 (HP), and the Calcutta High Court in Bata India Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 179 CTR (Cal) 147 : (2002) 257 ITR 622 (Cal), learned counsel has pleaded that an opportunity of hearing should have been granted to the petitioner before ordering a special audit. For the aforenoted view taken by us on the facts of the present case, we do not propose to dwell on the issue, though, prima facie, there is no substance in the proposition. For all these reasons, we decline to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition and application for interim relief, are accordingly dismissed.
[Citation : 267 ITR 752]
