Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 21]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Punjab Urban Development Authority ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-I & Another on 5 February, 2010

Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, Alok Singh

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                          CHANDIGARH.


                                      C.W.P. No.4204 of 2003 (O&M)
                                          Date of decision: 5.2.2010

Punjab Urban Development Authority (PUDA).
                                                        -----Petitioner.
                                Vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax-I & another.
                                                   -----Respondents


CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH

Present:-   Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Standing Counsel
            for the revenue.
                    ---

ORDER:

1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 8.10.2002, Annexure P-3, whereby special audit of accounts of the petitioner/assessee has been ordered under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act").

2. The assessee is a statutory body and filed its return claiming exemption under Section 10(20A) of the Act. The Assessing Officer passed the impugned order on the ground that accounts being complex, special audit was required.

3. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that no hearing was given to it before the impugned order was passed CWP No.4204 of 2003 2 which was necessary. Condition precedent for passing order under Section 142(2A) of the Act does not exist inasmuch as the accounts are not complex. Opinion of the Assessing officer is not based on objective data as required. Other requirements for exercise of the power have not been complied with. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahara India (Firm) v. Commissioner of Income Tax and another [2008] 300 ITR 403.

4. Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that since judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been delivered after filing of this petition, the revenue has no objection to a fresh order being passed in accordance with law.

5. In view of above statement, this petition is disposed of. A fresh order may be passed in accordance with law, if warranted, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. The petition is disposed of.


                                           (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
                                                   JUDGE


February 05, 2010                             ( ALOK SINGH )
ashwani                                            JUDGE