Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)
M/S.Crs Sons & Co. Limited vs The Income Tax Officer on 18 December, 2015 cites

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 Another. 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 :
Allahabad High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 10 - M Katju - Full Document

Atlas Copco (India) Ltd. vs V.S. Samuel, Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 7 March, 2006

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.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 5 - R M Lodha - Full Document

State Of Orissa vs Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei & Ors on 7 February, 1967

A bare perusal of Sub-section (2A) of Section 142 shows that all that is required therein is that the AO should be of the opinion that in view of the nature and complexity of the accounts of the assessee and the interest of the Revenue, it is necessary to direct special audit of the assessee's accounts. 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 underSection 142(2A).
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1001 - J C Shah - Full Document
1   2 Next