Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., New Delhi vs Dcit, New Delhi on 30 September, 2020
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, द ल यायपीठ "ए", नई द ल म
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH 'A', NEW DELHI
सु ी सष
ु मा चावला, उपा य एवं ी अ"नल चतव
ु द
$ , लेखा सद'य के सम
BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, VP & SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM
[THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING]
आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.4897 to 4903/Del/2014
िनधा रण वष / Assessment Years 2002-03 to 2008-09
M/s. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd.
B-1, /A-21, MICE, Mathura Road,
New Delhi .............अपीलाथ /Appellant
PAN-AAACB0205F
vs
DCIT,
Central Circle-17,
Room No.353, E-2, ARA Centre,
Jhandewalan Extn.
New Delhi-110055 ............. यथ / Respondent
आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.5540 to 5546/Del/2014
िनधा रण वष / Assessment Years 2002-03 to 2008-09
ACIT,
Central Circle-17,
Room No.353, E-2, ARA Centre,
Jhandewalan Extn.
New Delhi-110055 ...........अपीलाथ /Appellant
vs
M/s. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd.
B-1, /A-21, MICE, Mathura Road,
New Delhi
PAN-AAACB0205F ............. यथ / Respondent
ITA Nos. 4897 to 4903/Del/2014
ITA Nos. 5540 to 5546/Del/2014
अपीलाथ क ओर से / Appellant by: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv.
Ms. Meenal Goel, Adv.
यथ क ओर से / Respondent by: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, CIT-DR
सुनवाई क तारीख / घोषणा क तारीख /
Date of Hearing : 10.09.2020 Date of Pronouncement: .09.2020
आदेश / ORDER
PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, VP This bunch of cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are against separate orders of CIT(A)-III, New Delhi, relating to assessment years 2002-03 to 2008-09 respectively against the order passed under section 153A/143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').
2. This bunch of cross appeals relating to Assessment Years 2002-03 to 2008-09 were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
3. The Ld. AR for the assessee, at the outset, pointed out that the jurisdictional issue raised in the present bunch of appeals needed to be adjudicated first. He stressed that the issue stands covered by the order of the Tribunal in the case of sister concern i.e. M/s. Soul Space Projects Ltd. in ITA Nos.193 and 1849/Del/2015 along with C.O. Nos.271 & 274/Del/2015, relating to Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09.
4. The assessee has raised several grounds of appeal, but the jurisdictional issue is raised by the assessee vide ground of appeal nos. 1 to 3, which read as under:-
2ITA Nos. 4897 to 4903/Del/2014 ITA Nos. 5540 to 5546/Del/2014 "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not quashing the order dated 10.08.2010 passed by the assessing officer under section 153A as barred by limitation since the same had been passed beyond time limit specified under section 153B(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') inasmuch as:
a) the audit conducted by the special auditor under section 142(2A) of the Act was not required because the assessing officer did not point out any complexity in the books of accounts of the appellant before issuing any such directions; and
b) in any case, the extended time period allowed to the special auditor for furnishing audit report could not be excluded in terms of clause (ii) of Explanation under section 153B since such extension having been granted by the CIT, instead of the assessing officer as required under section 142(2C) of the Act was invalid in law.
2. That the CIT(A) erred on the facts and circumstances of the case in not appreciating that various disallowances/ additions made by the assessing officer (separately challenged infra) were beyond jurisdiction and scope of assessment under section 153A of the Act since the same were not based on any incriminating materials/documents found in the course of search.
3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned assessment framed by the assessing officer is bad in law and void-ab- intio inasmuch as the requisite notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act was served on the appellant after the prescribed time period".
5. In order to adjudicate the issue raised in the present bunch of appeals, we refer to the facts in ITA No.4897/Del/2014, relating to Assessment Year 2002-03.
6. Briefly in the facts of the case, the assessee had furnished the return of income on 03.10.2002. Search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act in the case of the assessee and other group of companies was conducted on 19.02.2008. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 153A of the Act on 24.12.2008. In response thereto, the assessee filed return of income on 20.02.2009. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny and notice 3 ITA Nos. 4897 to 4903/Del/2014 ITA Nos. 5540 to 5546/Del/2014 under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 30.09.2009. Show-cause notice were issued by the Assessing Officer dated 27.11.2009 requisitioning the assessee as to why special audit under section 142(2A) of the Act should not be directed for Assessment Years 2002-03 to 2008-09. The assessee filed its objection to the same by letter dated 04.12.2009. The said objections raised by the assessee were rejected by the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 08.12.2009. On 09.12.2009, show-cause notice was issued by the Commissioner prior to grant of approval under section 142(2A) of the Act for Assessment Years 2002-03 to 2008-09. The assessee filed reply to the same and the Commissioner vide his order dated 15.12.2009 approved special audit for the aforesaid Assessment Years under section 142(2A) of the Act, to be completed within the period of 120 days. Directions for special audit thereafter were issued by the AO for the said assessment years vide letter dated 15.12.2009. Under the provisions of the Act i.e. section 153B of the Act, the limitation was 21 months which expired on 31.12.2009. On 25.03.2010, request was made by the special auditor for extension of time to complete the special audit under section 142(2A) of the Act on the ground of non-
cooperation by the assessee. On 13.04.2010, letter was issued by the Assessing Officer intimating communication that extension of 60 days has been granted by the Commissioner vide letter dated 12.04.2010, received from the office of Commissioner. The said letter issued by the Commissioner granted approval for extension of time in the case of the assessee before us and in the case of the 4 ITA Nos. 4897 to 4903/Del/2014 ITA Nos. 5540 to 5546/Del/2014 group concern i.e M/s Soul Space Projects Ltd. Thereafter, special Audit Report was received and assessment order was passed on 13.06.2010.
7. The assessee is aggrieved by the extension of 60 days for completing the special audit under section 142(2A) of the Act. The case of the assessee is that the said extension had to be granted by the Assessing Officer, but in the present case, the same had been granted by the Commissioner vide letter dated 12.04.2010 and the Assessing Officer had only communicated the same vide letter dated 13.04.2010. The case of the Revenue on the other hand is that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind for the said grant of extension of time for completing the special audit and the necessary exercise in this regard was completed by him. The Ld. AR for the assessee after taking us through the sequence of events pointed out that vide letter dated 12.04.2020, extension of 60 days was granted by the Commissioner for completing the special audit in the case of assessee and M/s Soul Space Projects Ltd. vide common letter. The Ld. AR for the assessee also pointed out that common search was conducted at the premises of the assessee and M/s Soul Space Projects Ltd. and even same Punchnama refers to both the entities. Our attention was drawn to pages 42 to 49 of the Paper book in this regard. He then drew our attention to pages 83 & 84 of the paper book i.e communication for extension of 60 days for conducting the special audit. The Ld. AR for the assessee stressed that the same Assessing Officer and same Commissioner had conducted the proceedings in the case of the assessee. He placed reliance on the order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s 5 ITA Nos. 4897 to 4903/Del/2014 ITA Nos. 5540 to 5546/Del/2014 Soul Space Projects Ltd. (Supra) and stressed that the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee.
8. The Ld. DR for the Revenue fairly stated that the facts of the case are identical to the facts of the M/s Soul Space Projects Ltd. However, he placed reliance on his written submission. He further referred to paras 8 to 11 of his written submissions which read as under:-
8. While arguing in Soul Space Projects Ltd., Ld. AR relied on the following decision in support of the argument that approval from higher incompetent authority is improper:-
1. CIT v. SPL's Siddhartha Ltd. : 345 ITR 223 (Del.)
2. Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT : 346 ITR 443 (Bom.)
3. CIT v. Soyuz Insdustrial Resources Ltd. : [2015] 232 Taxman 414 (Del. HC)
4. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. DDIT : 397 ITR 639 (Del.) MY SUBMISSION ON THE ABOVE It is humbly submitted that all these decisions are on the subject of reopening of assessment u/s 147 and the authority who should be satisfied for on the reasons recorded by the assessing officer. Therefore, these decisions are in respect of satisfaction for initiation of reassessment proceedings. None of the decision is related for extension of time period of audit of books of accounts, where the initiatives of assessment proceedings are not challenged. Therefore, these cases are distinguishable on the facts of the case.
In all these cases, the jurisdiction was challenged on the basis of either initiation of assessment or search authorization or level of interest which is distinguishable on the facts of the case, which is only extension of time period for audit u/s 142(2A).
6ITA Nos. 4897 to 4903/Del/2014 ITA Nos. 5540 to 5546/Del/2014
9. While arguing in Soul Space Projects Ltd., Ld. AR relied on the following decisions on the argument that power vested in an authority by statute to be exercised strictly by such authority.
1. CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala: 252ITR 1 (SC)
2. CIT v. Elelvinator of India Ltd.: 256 ITR 1 (Del. HC) (FB)
3. Dr. Nalini Mahajan v. DIT: 252 ITR 123 (Del. HC) MY SUBMISSION ON THE ABOVE In this regard, following submissions may be considered showing that all these case laws are distinguishable on facts.
a) Anjuman M.H. Ghaswala:- This case related to Power of Settlement Commission Vs. CBDT for waiver of interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C of IT Act.
b) Kelvinator of India Ltd:- Issue of change of opinion for the reason to believe escapement of income.
c) Dr. Nalini Mahajan:- These issue was exercising power to issue authorization u/s 132 by Additional Direction.
In all these cases, the jurisdiction was challenged on the basis of either initiation of assessment or search authorization or level of interest which is distinguishable on the facts of the case, which is only extension of time period for audit u/s 142(2A).
10. Ld. AR argued that exercise of statutory power of an authority at the discretion of another authority vitiates the proceedings.
1. The Purtabpore Co. Ltd. v. Cane Commissioner of Bihar and others: 1969(1)
2. Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji: AIR 1952 SC 16
3. Anirudhsinji Karansinhji Jadeja and Another v. State of Gujarat: (1995)5 SCC 302
4. State of U.P. & others v. Maharaja Dharamander Prasad Singh & others: (1989)2 SCC 505 7 ITA Nos. 4897 to 4903/Del/2014 ITA Nos. 5540 to 5546/Del/2014 MY SUBMISSION ON THE ABOVE In this regard, following submissions may be considered showing that all these case laws are distinguishable on facts.
a) The Purtabpore Co. Ltd. (Cited Supra) -- The issue was for quasi judicial power of commission v. Chief Minister. The facts in present case are entirely different.
b) Gordhandas Bhauii (Cited Supra) -- The issue was the power of commission vis-a vis the interference of the government. These facts are clearly distinguished in the present case.
c) Anirudh Sinhji Jadeja (Cited Supra) -- The issue was the power of DSP for prior approval for recording information about commission of offence u/s Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. The facts are clearly distinguishable.
d) Maharaja Dharamander Prasad Singh & Others. -- The issue was related to permission for development of land by private part under U.P. Urban Planning Development Act, 1973. These facts are not applicable in the present case.
11. OVERALL SUMMARY OF MY SUBMISSIONS:
(i) Based upon the written submissions made above, it may kindly be seen that the statute provided the only condition to be satisfied for extending the time, is the satisfaction the Assessing Officer .
(ii) The assessing officer in present case has applied his mind and found the case suitable for extension as can be seen from the letter of the assessing officer dated 11.02.2020. Therefore, conditions for extending the time period under the above proviso is met expect the grant of extension by CIT for administrative reason on account of special audit pending in other group cases.
(iii) Therefore, it is submitted that since on substantial basis the requirement of proviso has been met, just on account of 8 ITA Nos. 4897 to 4903/Del/2014 ITA Nos. 5540 to 5546/Del/2014 only administrative approval of CIT for sectioning the extension should not vitiate the extension of time for special audit.
(iv) Without prejudice to above submission it may be mentioned that CIT is the approving authority for special audit u/s 142(2A) and therefore his involvement for extension of time as per proviso is inherent."
9. We have heard the rival contention and perused the records. The issue which is raised in the present bunch of appeals relating to Assessment Years 2002-03 to 2008-09, where the cross appeals are filed by the assessee and the Revenue, is against the grant of extension for further period for conduct of special audit under section 142(2A) of the Act by the Commissioner and whether the same is legally valid or not. The sequence of the events is tabulated here under:-
Date Particulars
03.10.2002 Return of income for assessment year 2002-03
filed under section 139(1) of the Act.
19.02.2008 Search and seizure operation under section 132 of
the Act in the case of the appellant and other group companies.
24.12.2008 Notice under section 153A of the Act issued by the assessing officer for assessment year 2002-03 20.02.2009 Assessee filed return of income pursuant to aforesaid notice 30.09.2009 Notice under section 143(2) of the Act issued by the assessing officer 07.10.2009 Notice under section 143(2) of the Act served on the assessee (barred by limitation) 27.11.2009 Show-cause notice issued by the assessing officer requiring explanation why special audit under section 142(2A) of the Act should not be directed for assessment years 2002-03 to 2008-09 04.12.2009 Objections/reply to aforesaid show-cause notice filed before the assessing officer 08.12.2009 Letter by assessing officer rejecting the objections raised by the assessee for assessment years 2002- 03 to 2008-09 09.12.2009 Show-cause notice issued by CIT prior to grant of 9 ITA Nos. 4897 to 4903/Del/2014 ITA Nos. 5540 to 5546/Del/2014 approval under section 142(2A) of the Act for assessment years 2002-03 to 2008- 09 14.12.2009 Reply to aforesaid show-cause notice filed by the assessee before the CIT 15.12.2009 CIT approved special audit for assessment years 2002-03 to 2008- 09 under section 142(2A) of the Act to be completed within a period of 120 days 15.12.2009 Direction for special audit by the assessing officer for assessment years 2002-03 to 2008-09 to be completed within 120 days.
31.12.2009 Normal limitation period of 21 months under section 153B of the Act for completion of assessment 25.03.2010 Request by special auditor for extension of time on the ground of alleged lack of cooperation by the assessee 13.04.2010 Letter issued by the assessing officer intimating/ communicating that extension of 60 days has granted by CIT vide letter dated 12.04.2010 received from the office of the CIT.
Most importantly, letter dated 12.04.2010 [page 84] clearly states that approval for extension has been considered and granted by the CIT in the following cases:
1. B.L. Kashyap & Sons (appellant)
2. Soul Space Projects Ltd. (group company) Pertinently, extension granted by the CIT instead of 'assessing officer' (appropriate authority) invalid in terms of proviso to section 142(2C) of the Act.
Fact that extension was granted by the CIT is patently clear from letter dated 12.04.2020, letter dated 13.04.2020 and is 83-84 3 Date Particulars Page No. (PB) also expressly mentioned by the assessing officer on page 2 of the assessment order.
14.04.2010 120th day - the last day on which the Special Auditor was required to complete special audit. 11.06.2010 Special audit report filed before the assessing officer 13.06.2010 Limitation for passing assessment order, after excluding 120 days granted for completion of special audit (without considering extension granted on 13.04.2010) 10.08.2010 Assessment order passed under section 153A/143(3) of the Act 10 ITA Nos. 4897 to 4903/Del/2014 ITA Nos. 5540 to 5546/Del/2014
10. The issue which arises in the present appeal before us is whether where the extension for conduct of special audit had not been given by the Assessing Officer, who was the only authority to grant the same is the extension granted by the Commissioner is nullity in the eyes of law? The relevant proviso below section 142(2C) of the Act reads as under:-
"Provided that the [Assessing] Officer may, [suo motu, or] on an application made in this behalf by the assessee and for any good and sufficient reason, extend the said period by such further period or periods as he thinks fit; so, however, that the aggregate of the period originally fixed and the period or periods so extended shall not, in any case, exceed one hundred and eighty days from the date on which the direction under sub-section (2A) is received by the assessee,"
11. Similar issue arose before the Tribunal in the case of M/s Soul Space Projects Ltd. (supra) and after referring to the arguments of the Ld. CIT-DR which are reproduced in para 11 at pages 10 to 14 of the order, vide para-12, reference was made to the information received from Assessing Officer during proceedings before Tribunal and the arguments with regard to grant of permission in connection with extension of the period for audit was reproduced and it reads as under:-
"12. The information received by the revenue during the arguments with regard to the granting of permission in connection with the extension of the period for audit is as under:
OFFICE OF THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, NEW DELHI Room No. 245, ARA Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi - 110055.
F. No. ACIT/CC-15/2019-20/1605 Dated: 11.02.2020 To The Commissioner of Income Tax(DR), G-Bench, ITAT, 7th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi.11
ITA Nos. 4897 to 4903/Del/2014 ITA Nos. 5540 to 5546/Del/2014 Sir, Subject: Second appeal in the case of ACIT Vs Soul Space Projects Ltd., ITA No.193/Del/2015 for A.Y.2007-08, 1849/Del/2015 for A.Y.2008-09 and 4352/Del/2015 for A.Y. 2009-10 - matter reg.
Ref: F.No. CIT/DR/ITAT/G-Bench/2019-20/195 dated 27.01.2020.
Kindly refer to the above noted subject.
2. On perusal of assessment and special audit records in the case of Soul Space Projects Ltd, it is found that M/s Dinesh Mehta & Co., Special Auditor appointed in the case of Soul Space Projects Ltd., has filed an application on 08.04.2010 related to extension of time for furnishing the special audit report. Accordingly, the then AO has forwarded a letter to Ld. CIT, Central - II, New Delhi on 08.04.2010 regarding extension of special audit in this case and stated as under:-
"2. M/s Dinesh Mehta & Co. has filed a request vide letter dated 25.03.2010 for granting extension of time for a further period of two months for submission of the aforesaid report because there is delay on the part of assessee to furnish details and information required by the auditors as per annexure appended by the auditors with the aforesaid letter (Copy of letter with enclosures is enclosed for ready reference).
3. In this connection, it is also informed that the auditors M/s Sanjay Satpal & Associates appointed for special audit in the case of the flagship company for the group i.e. M/s B .L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. has also requested for extension of time for further 2 months for the similar reasons. The application filed by M/s Sanjay Satpal & Associates has already been forwarded to your good self on 07.04.2010 for favourable consideration. Since, M/s Soul Space Projects Ltd. has large numbers of intergroup transactions with M/s B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., it is necessary that both the auditors should work in close cooperation with each other and should exchange one other's finding before reaching any conclusion. Hence, it is recommended that the extension of time may also be granted to M/s Dinesh Mehta & Co. if extension of time is granted by your good self to M/s Sanjay Satpal & Associates."
3. Further, the Ld.CIT, Central-11, New Delhi, vide letter No.CIT/(C)- ll/10- 11/24 dated 12.04.2010 has conveyed the extension of 60 days for the purpose of furnishing the audit report and directed ''No further extension will be allowed and the auditors may be asked to adhere to the extended time limit for the purpose". Accordingly, the assessing officer vide letter F.No.DCIT-CC-17/Special Audit/2010-11/40 dated 13.04.2010 has informed that the extension of further 60 days granted to the Special Auditors M/s Dinesh Mehta & Co., Chartered Accountants, for furnishing the audit report u/s 142(2A) in the case and also requested to the assessee to provide the requisite information 12 ITA Nos. 4897 to 4903/Del/2014 ITA Nos. 5540 to 5546/Del/2014 immediately under information to the undersigned so the special audit may be completed in a smooth manner.
4. On perusal of relevant records, it is ascertained that the Assessing Officer has applied his mind in the letter dated 08.04.2010 therein he has given the reasons for extension for furnish the special audit report. Consequently, the Ld.CIT has considered the facts (application of mind of AO) and directed to the AO to convey the extension of 60 days for the purpose of furnishing the special audit u/s 142(2A). Therefore, it is clear that the extension of period u/s 142(2C) was granted by the AO after applying his mind, not by the Ld. CIT, Central-ll and the Ld. CIT, Central-ll has only directed to the AO to convey the extension of period to the Special Auditors. The above referred letters are also enclosed herewith for ready reference."
12. Further, reference was made to the letter of the DCIT, dated 13.04.2010 and the same was reproduced under para 13 and it reads as under:-
"13. The order of the DCIT, Central Circle-17, which is an important document to determine whether the provisions of Section 142(2C) are followed or not.
F.No. DCIT-CC-17/Special Audit/2010-11/40 Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -17, Room No. 353, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi Phone No. 23593441 Date: 13/04/2010 To, The Principal Officer, M/s Soul Space Projects Ltd.
A-21/B-1 Extn., Mohan Co-operative Industrial Area, Mathura Road, New Delhi Sub: In the matter of M/s Soul Space Projects Ltd. - Assessment Year 2006-07 to 2008-09 - Special Audit under section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961... regarding Sir, Please refer to the above.
In this connection you are hereby informed that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - II, New Delhi vide his office letter F.No. CIT/(C)- 11/10-11/24 dated 12/04/2010 has granted extension of 60 days to 13 ITA Nos. 4897 to 4903/Del/2014 ITA Nos. 5540 to 5546/Del/2014 the special auditors M/s Dinesh Mehta & Co., Chartered Accountants, for furnishing the audit report u/s 142(2A) in your case.
please acknowledge the receipt of this letter, Sd/-
Yours faithfully, (B.L. Sharma) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 17, New Delhi
13. The relevant findings of the Tribunal thereafter were as under:-
"14. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record.
15. The case laws quoted by the ld. AR as rebutted by the ld. DR have been closely perused while the ld. DR argued that the relevance of the case laws with regard to the Sections for which the case laws emanated, the ld. AR stressed on the ratio of the case laws as to the statutory discretion of the powers of the various authorities. The ld. DR's contention was that the "administrative approval" of the CIT for sanctioning extension of the period should not vitiate the conduct of special audit. It was argued that the letter of the CIT, Central-II should construed only as an administrative direction whereas the real extension has been granted by the DCIT, Central Cirecle-17 vide letter dated 13.04.2010. It was also argued that while approval of the CIT, is required for ordering fresh audit u/s 142(2A), no such approval for extension it is not required. It is the administrative permission sought by the DCIT for the CIT, hence the action cannot be said to be illegal.
The undisputed facts are,
1. The assessing officer has received the request from special auditor for extension of time to complete audit u/s 142(2A) which was account of delay on the part of the assessee.
2. The assessing officer was satisfied on the reason submitted by the special auditor and recommended for extension to CIT as there were other cases having inter-group transaction for special audit and extension was granted by CIT(C)-II, New Delhi.
3. CIT(C)-II, New Delhi has conveyed the extension.
4. The AO conveyed the granting of extension of 60 days by the CIT, Central-II to the assessee.
16. The Sec, 142 (2A) provides that the directions for special audit shall be given by the Assessing officer, with the previous approval of Chief Commissioner or Commissioner. In this case, there is no dispute 14 ITA Nos. 4897 to 4903/Del/2014 ITA Nos. 5540 to 5546/Del/2014 that these directions have been given. Thus, the legislature clearly intended that initial direction shall be with the approval and after examination of the subject matter by the higher after prior approval of CIT, Central - II, New Delhi. Thereafter, proviso below Sec. 142 (2C) provides for the procedure for giving extension for completing the special audit task. It clearly provides that the Assessing Officer shall extend the said time period if the conditions as mentioned in the said proviso stands satisfied. Thus, while initial direction is to be given with the approval of CCIT / CIT, however, for extension, it is only the Assessing Officer who has to take a decision for extension. It is to be specifically pointed out that in Sec. 142 (2A) law mandates the prior approval of CCIT/ CIT, while in the proviso below Sec. 142 (2C), while to grant extension, the sole power is vested with the Assessing Officer. The statute u/s 142(2A) provides for special audit with the previous approval of the CIT is intended with an objective that the subject matter stands examined by the higher and more experienced officers so that it may not bring unnecessary work and equity to the assessed. Once the issue u/s 142(2A) stands examined by the higher authorities, thereafter, for the issue of extension u/s 142(2C), there is no need for the higher authorities to be involved and the law provided the circumstances, on existence of which, this decision has been left over to be taken by the concerned Assessing Officer.
17. In the present case, the extension has been given by CIT and not by the Assessing Officer, vide letter dtd. 13.04.2010, as under:- "In this connection you are hereby informed that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - II, New Delhi vide his office letter F.No. CIT/(C)- ll/10-11/24 dated 12/04/2010 has granted extension of 60 days to the special auditors M/s. Sanjay Satpal & Associates, Chartered Accountants, for furnishing the audit report u/s. 142 (2A) in your case."
18. We have carefully gone through the entire events and the verbatim of the letters. We also tried to dwell whether the intention of the Assessing Officer is to "extend the period" or conveying the "approval of the CIT". While it may be an administrative phenomenon to intimate, inform the CIT about the fact of the special audit party appointed seeking extension, but statutorily that power is vested with the Assessing Officer. On going through the established judgment, it cannot be disputed that the statutory powers vested with one specified authority cannot be exercised by another authority unless and until the statute provides for the same. And we find that the extension has not been given by the Assessing Officer
19. The powers and the jurisdiction of the various authorities to implement the Income Tax Act stands clearly defined in the statute. For example, the power to approve the accounts audited u/s 142(2A) lies with CIT/PCIT/CCIT or PCCIT. The powers u/s 144A are to be exercised by the Joint Commissioner or Additional Commissioner. The powers u/s 251 are specific to the Commissioner (Appeals). Similarly, the powers u/s 263 and 264 are to be exercised by the PCIT/CIT.
15ITA Nos. 4897 to 4903/Del/2014 ITA Nos. 5540 to 5546/Del/2014 Further, in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (a) of sub- section (2) of section 119 of Income-tax Act, 1961, Central Board of Direct Taxes, may direct that the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax and Director General of Income tax may reduce or waive interest charged under section 234A or section 234B. Further to mention, while levy of the penalty u/s 271AAB is the power of the Assessing Officer, the provisions u/s 274(2) mandates that the prior approval of the JCIT is required before levy of such penalty. Thus, we find that the statute has accorded implementation of the various provisions to specified authorities which cannot be interchanged.
20. A power which has been given to a specified authority has to be discharged only by him. Substitution of that officer/authority by any other officer, may be of higher rank, cannot validate the said order/ action. The extension could have been valid only if it had been given by the Assessing Officer after due application of mind and after examining the existence of circumstances as provided in proviso below Sec. 142 (2C), since, it has to be given only by competent authority. In this case, the extension has not been given by the Assessing Officer but by the CIT, Central-II and the Assessing Officer has only conveyed the approval, therefore, we hold that the extension given by the CIT, Central-II is beyond the powers vested as per the statute and accordingly the assessment completed after the due date is held to be void ab initio."
14. The issue arising before us is similar to the issue before the Tribunal in the case of M/s Soul Space Projects Ltd. (supra). Even the Punchnama for the search was issued in the name of various entities as per Annexure-1 which included names of the assessee and M/s Soul Space Projects Ltd. It may also be pointed out that the Commissioner has issued common letter for both the entities under which the so-called extension of 60 days was given for conduct of special audit. In the entirety of above facts and circumstances, where under proviso to section 142(2C) of the Act, jurisdiction was upon the Assessing Officer to examine the circumstances and after due application of mind pass an order granting extension for conduct of special audit under section 142(2A) of the Act and as no extension has been given by the Assessing Officer but by the Commissioner and the Assessing Officer has only conveyed the approval, 16 ITA Nos. 4897 to 4903/Del/2014 ITA Nos. 5540 to 5546/Del/2014 therefore, we hold that the grant of extension by the Commissioner is beyond the powers enshrined under the statute. Accordingly, the assessment completed after the due date is held to be void-ab-initio.
15. Since, we have decided the jurisdictional issue in favour of the assessee, there is no need to adjudicate the issue raised on merits as the same become academic in nature. The preliminary issue raised by the assessee is thus allowed.
16. The preliminary issue raised in the Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008- 09 being similar to the issue raised in Assessment Year 2002-03, our decision in Assessment Year 2002-03 shall apply Mutatis Mutandi.
17. Now, coming to the appeals of the Revenue, the same are on merits, are dismissed as assessment order is held to be void-ab-initio.
18. In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30th September, 2020.
Sd/- Sd/-
(ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SUSHMA CHOWLA)
लेखा सद'य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा य / VICE PRESIDENT
द ल / दनांक Dated : 30th September, 2020
f{x~{tÜ? fÜA P.S,
17
ITA Nos. 4897 to 4903/Del/2014
ITA Nos. 5540 to 5546/Del/2014
आदे श क+ ,"त-ल.प अ/े.षत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ2 / The Appellant
2. ,3यथ2 / The Respondent
3. आयकर आय4 ु त (अपील)/ The CIT(A)
4. म7 ु य आयकर आय4 ु त / The Pr. CIT
5. .वभागीय ,"त"न ध,आयकर अपील य अ धकरण , द ल / DR, ITAT, Delhi
6. गाड< फाईल /Guard file.
आदे शानस ु ार/ BY ORDER, स3या.पत ,"त //True Copy// सहायक रिज'Aार, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण , द ल Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi 18