Sahara India International vs Cit
2006 Latest Caselaw 1658 Del

ORDER

1. The Petitioner challenges an order dated 22-3-2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ACIT), Central Circle-6, New Delhi under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the following effect:

Having regard to the nature and complexity of your accounts and interest of the revenue and being of the opinion, it is necessary so to do, I hereby direct you to get your accounts audited under Section 142(2A) of the incorne-tax Act, 1961 for financial year 2002-03 pertaining to assessment year 2003-04 by M/s. P. Bholusaria & Co., 2611, Shakti Nagar, Delhi and to furnish a report on such audit in the prescribed proforma duly signed and verified by the CA. The audit report under Section 142(2A) should be furnished by you to the undersigned within a period of 105 days from the date of the directions received by you.

2. The Petitioner sought for and was provided detailed reasons that led to the making of the above order. The Petitioner challenges the said order dated 22-3-2006 principally on the ground that it suffers from nonapplication of mind inasmuch as the Petitioner has already supplied all the details sought for by the department and further that the said order does not indicate that the Officer concerned has examined the books of account of the Petitioner which is a sine qua non for invoking the power under Section 142(2A) of the Act.

3. We have considered the detailed decisions of this Court in Gurunanak Enterprises v. CIT and Yum Restaurants India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT . Our attention has been drawn to the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Jhunjhunwala Vanaspati Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT . In Jhunjhunwala Vanaspati Ltd.'s case (supra), the Division Bench has taken the view that no civil consequences follow and therefore, the High Court should not interfere in its decision under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act. We note that in Gurunanak Enterprises'case (supra) as well as Yum Restaurant India (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra), the Benches of this Court took the view that civil consequences would follow. Our attention has also been drawn to decision in Ramesh Chand Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1998) 100 Taxman 570 (Del). Furthermore, in Living Media Ltd. v. CIT . The Division Bench of this Court dismissed a Writ Petition "keeping in view of the simple fact that the petitioner has voluminous details running into 500 pages to explain the queries raised by the Assessing Authority. Further details running into about thousand pages were also filed by the assessed before the Assessing Authority." When this decision was carried in appeal, the Apex court declined to interfere.

4. From the records before us, it is evident that a number of hearings have been granted to the Petitioner before the impugned order was passed. This decision was forwarded to the Commissioner by the Assistant Commissioner in terms of letter dated 14-3-2006. A perusal of the Assistant Commissioner's letter discloses that the available materials were considered. In the circumstances, the impugned order cannot be said to suffer from non-application of mind. The decision reflected in the impugned order cannot be said to be whimsical, capricious or punitive or arrived at in a mechanical manner. No ground for interference is made out in this petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Application also stands dismissed.