Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.36 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
West Bengal State Co-Operative Bank ... vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax And ... on 18 February, 2004
In the case of West Bengal State Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra), the learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court relied upon the judgment in the case of Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. (supra), and took the view that the assessee needs to be heard before passing an order for special audit.
Muthoottu Mini Kuries vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax And ... on 2 January, 2001
Merely because the assessee is required to pay the auditor's fee, that does not mean that any liability is created against the assessee and that such order entails any civil consequences. The issuance of direction for special audit facilitates the AO to have the complex accounts of the assessee examined by an independent auditor. That helps and assists him in assessing the income of the assessee. We find ourselves in agreement with the view of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Jhunjhunwala Vanaspati Ltd. (supra) and respectfully disagree with the view of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. (supra) and West Bengal State Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra) and the view of the Kerala High Court in the case of Muthoottu Mini Kuries (supra). In our opinion, the assessee is not required to be heard before passing an order under Section 142(2A) of the IT Act, 1961.
Jhunjhunwala Vanaspati Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 17 February, 2004
13. Mr. Ashok Kotangale, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, relied upon the Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Jhunjhunwala Vanaspati Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT and Anr. . The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in clear and unambiguous terms gave its opinion that it was not necessary for the AO to issue a show-cause notice or give a hearing to the assessee before issuing the direction of special audit under Section 142(2A). The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that an order under Section 142(2A) giving direction of special audit does not entail any civil consequences nor affect the rights of the assessee. Such order does not create any liability against the assessee. The Allahabad High Court held thus :
State Of Orissa vs Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei & Ors on 7 February, 1967
In our opinion, it is not necessary for the AO to give a show-cause notice or give a hearing to the assessee before issuing the directions under Section 142(2A). In our opinion, the direction under Sub-section (2A) of Section 142 is purely administrative in nature and not quasi judicial. Moreover, in our opinion, such a direction does not have civil consequences. It does not affect the assessee's rights or liability. Hence, the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei does not apply. No doubt an administrative order if it has civil consequences can only be passed after giving opportunity of hearing, but in our opinion a direction under Sub-section (2A) of Section 142 does not have civil consequences because it does not affect his rights and does not create any liability against the assessee. It is only the assessment order which will create a liability. The purpose of the direction under Sub-section (2A) of Section 142 is to ensure that a correct assessment order is passed so that the Revenue is not deprived of its dues. Hence, we do not agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that an opportunity of hearing or show-cause notice has to be given to the assessee before passing the direction under Section 142(2A).
Section 80HHC in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Khoday Distilleries Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 12 February, 2001
1. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petn. No. 1314 of 2004, Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 6(3), Mumbai and Ors. on 27th July, 2004 and submitted that since the said writ petition has been admitted wherein the issue is involved whether before passing the order under Section 142(2A) an opportunity of hearing needs to be given to the assessee or not and as in the present writ petition the said issue is also raised, this writ petition be also admitted.