Jharkhand High Court
Kaushal Kanchan Construction P vs Commissioner Of Income Tax & O on 19 August, 2011
Author: Prakash Tatia
Bench: H.C.Mishra, Prakash Tatia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(T) No. 4366 of 2011
Kaushal Kanchan Construction Private Limited ... Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner of Income Tax, Central,
Central Revenue Building, Patna & Ors. ... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(T) No. 4371 of 2011
Kaushal Kumar Singh ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner of Income Tax, Central,
Central Revenue Building, Patna & Ors. ... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. K.K.Jhunjhunwala
For the Respondent : Mr. Deepak Roshan
------
Order No.02 Dated: 19th August, 2011.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Both these writ petitions are decided by this common order
since the facts and issues involved are the same.
The petitioner is aggrieved against the Auditor's Report
submitted on 28th June, 2011 before the Assessing Authority and
the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
Assessing Authority appointed the Auditor u/s 142 (2A) of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 27.12.2010 and he was
allowed to complete the audit within a period of two months.
However, he did not complete the audit within two months, then he
sought the extension of time from the Commissioner of Income Tax
(Central) who vide order dated 29.04.2011, extended the time to
complete the audit but it was also extended only upto 31.05.2011
whereas the Auditor submitted the audit report on 28.06.2011.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the
Commissioner of Income Tax had no jurisdiction to extend the time.
However, it may be relevant to mention here that hearing in the
case was going on and according to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the next date before the Assessing Authority is 22nd of
August, 2011.
In view of the above facts, it is clear that the Auditor was
appointed on 27.12.2010 and the authority of the Assessing Officer
to appoint Auditor was not challenged, then the Auditor continued
on the post of Auditor and the Commissioner of Income Tax
extended the time on 29.04.2011 and audit report was submitted on
28.06.2011and when the Assessing Authority is about to decide the matter then these writ petitions have been filed.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the petitioner without raising objection before the Assessing Authority, as has been raised before this Court and if raised, then without waiting for the decision of the Assessing Authority, approached this Court just to delay the proceeding of the Assessing Authority and therefore, we are not inclined to entertain these writ petitions, which are accordingly dismissed.
(Prakash Tatia, A.C.J.) (H.C.Mishra, J.) D.S./Sudhir