Delhi High Court

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/110409972/

Delhi High Court M/S Provident Investment & ... vs Income Tax Officer & Others on 8 April, 2011 * 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

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2375/2011 Page 4 of 4