Mahila Uthan Trust v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
[Citation -2017-LL-0419-24]
| Citation | 2017-LL-0419-24 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | Mahila Uthan Trust |
| Respondent Name | Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax |
| Court | HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 19/04/2017 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | period of limitation • service of notice • question of law • special audit • books of account |
| Bot Summary: | It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that after the petitioner received the show cause notice dated 20/10/2016, by which the reply to the show cause notice was required to be filed on or before 20/10/2016, the petitioner assessee sought adjournment /prayed for extension of three weeks time to respond to the show cause notice dated 20/10/2016. Page 2 of 5 HC-NIC Page 2 of 5 Created On Sun Apr 23 10:14:36 IST 2017 C/SCA/1378/2017 JUDGMENT It is the case on behalf of the petitioner assessee that the communication dated 07/11/2016 granting the final opportunity by the Assessing Officer up to 11/11/2016 was received by the petitioner assessee only on 15/11/2016, and therefore, vide communication dated 16/11/2016 the petitioner sought for further adjournment /extension of time submitting that the communication dated 07/11/2016 granting time up to 11/11/2016 was received by the petitioner on 15/11/2016. In the meantime, on the premise that despite sufficient opportunity was given the petitioner had not raised any objections and /or given reply, the Assessing Officer sent the proposal to the Commissioner on 15/11/2016, and therefore, vide communication dated 21/11/2016, the Assessing Officer informed the petitioner that as by the time he had already made proposal on 15/11/2016, no further time can be granted. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that without considering even the objections raised by the petitioner, raised on 25/11/2016, the Commissioner granted approval on 25/11/2016 itself and thereafter the Assessing Officer passed the impugned order dated 28/11/2016 of special audit under Section 142 of the Income Tax Act, and therefore, it is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the approval granted by the Commissioner as well as the impugned order of special audit under Section 142 of the Income Tax Act is in breach of principles of natural justice. The fact remains that before recording the satisfaction requiring special audit and before making proposal to the Commissioner for its approval, the petitioner has not been given an opportunity inasmuch as the communication dated 07/11/2016 granting final opportunity to the petitioner up to 11/11/2016 was received by the petitioner assessee only on 15/11/2016. Under the circumstances, on the aforesaid ground alone and without further entering into other questions on merits, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter is to be remanded to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and on its own merits and after considering the objections raised by the petitioner dated 25/11/2016 and after following the due procedure as required. 6.0 In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, on the aforesaid ground alone, the impugned order dated 28/11/2016 ordering special audit under Section 142 of the Income Tax Act is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to pass an order afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits after considering the objections dated 25/11/2016 raised /submitted by the petitioner assessee and after following the due procedure as required. |