Delhi High Court
M/S Provident Investment & ... vs Income Tax Officer & Others on 8 April, 2011
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2375 OF 2011
% Judgment delivered on: 8th April, 2011.
M/S PROVIDENT INVESTMENT & INDUSTRIES (I) PVT. LTD.
.... Petitioner
Through Mr. Kannan Kapoor, Mr. Y.K. Kapoor
& Mr. T.R. Talwar, Advocates.
VERSUS
INCOME TAX OFFICER & OTHERS .....Respondents
Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing
Counsel & Ms. Anshul Sharma, Advocate for
Revenue.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
SANJIV KHANNA, J.:
M/s Provident Investment & Industries (I) Private Limited
by the present writ petition has impugned the order dated 28th
December, 2010 passed under Section 142(2A) of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) appointing a Special Auditor in
respect of the assessment year 2008-09.
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2375/2011 Page 1 of 4
2. At the outset, it may be noticed that the present writ
petition was filed on 6th April, 2011 after more than three months
from the date special audit was directed. Learned counsel for
the petitioner is not able to give any explanation for the delay in
approaching this Court. It is noticed that as per the order dated
28th December, 2010 special audit was required to be completed
within a period of ninety days. The said period has expired.
3. Learned counsel for the Revenue has appeared on
advance notice and has pointed out that the said Auditor had
issued letter dated 30th April, 2010 and thereafter has been
trying his utmost to complete the special audit but because of
non-cooperation of the petitioner he was not able to complete
the same. Copy of the letters issued by the said Auditor have
been produced before us. It is the contention of the Revenue
that the petitioner is deliberately delaying the assessment
proceedings and that is why he has belatedly approached the
Court to stall the special audit.
4. In view of the facts noticed above, there is merit in the
contention raised by the learned counsel for the Revenue as the
petitioner is unable to give any satisfactory explanation for the
delay in approaching the Court. It is not the case of the
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2375/2011 Page 2 of 4
petitioner that he was not aware of the order directing special
audit.
5. It is noticed that before directing special audit, notice was
issued to the petitioner under Section 142(2A) of the Act and the
case was fixed for compliance on 21st December, 2010. The
petitioner does not dispute that he had received the notice dated
16th December, 2010. It is the case of the Revenue that no one
attended the hearing on 21st December, 2010 and thereafter the
file was processed and approval of the Commissioner of Income
Tax, Delhi was taken and thereupon order dated 28th December,
2010 was passed by the Assessing Officer directing special
audit.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
authorized representative of the petitioner had gone to the office
of the Assessing Officer and had made appearance on 11.15
a.m. but was informed that the proceedings stand closed.
7. We are not inclined to accept the said contention and the
statement of the petitioner, as there is no proof or evidence to
support the same. The petitioner did not object or write any
letter protesting or stating that special audit was not required
and justified. In case the Assessing Officer had closed the
proceedings in haste and in an arbitrary manner, the petitioner in
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2375/2011 Page 3 of 4
normal course would have taken immediate steps. No letter or
correspondence was written. Thus, the notice to show cause
was not answered/replied. This fact coupled by the delay in
approaching the Court of more than three months confirm the
apprehension and inference that the intention and purpose
behind filing the petition is to delay and stall the proceedings.
We may also notice that the order directing special audit is a
very detailed order setting out several reasons why special audit
is justified in the present case. The Assessing Officer has also
quoted from the audit report enclosed by the petitioner along
with the return.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is
dismissed in limine. However, we clarify that nothing in this
order should be construed as expression of opinion on the
merits of the case. There will be no order as to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
APRIL 08, 2011
VKR
