Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: VAT Audit :: VAT RATES :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: due date for vat payment :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: form 3cd :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: empanelment :: TDS :: cpt :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD
 
 
ę Auditing »
 Time Limit For Completion Of Assessment From The Date Of Special Auditorís Report Under Income Tax Act, 1961
 Provisioning pertaining to Fraud Accounts
 Tax Audit Report (TAR) Certain exceptions and increased limits according to number of partners and considering nature of activity are desirable
 Cost Auditing Standards [ Cost Audit Documentation (102)] Ė Part-II
 Conference on Companies Act gets under way
 New bureau to dissolve state-run banks' power to choose auditors
 Foreign Exchange Management (Permissible Capital Account Transactions) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2015
 ICAI forms 'prima facie' view on NSEL auditor
 Firms appoint new auditors in shift to meet new standards
 Cadre restructuring in I-T dept may open scrutiny of closed cases
 RBI issues new guidelines on concurrent auditing at branches

Time Limit For Completion Of Assessment From The Date Of Special Auditors Report Under Income Tax Act, 1961
April, 27th 2016

Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) provides for the conduct of special audit that may directed by the Assessing Officer.  The said section provides that  if, at any stage of the proceedings before him, the Assessing Officer, having regard to the –

  • nature and complexity of the accounts,
  • volume of the accounts,
  • doubts about the correctness of the accounts,
  • multiplicity of transactions in the accounts; or
  • specialized nature of business activity of the assessee; and
  • the interests of the revenue,

is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do, he may, with the previous approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, direct the assessee to get the accounts audited by an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below section 288(2), nominated by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in this behalf and to furnish a report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed and such other particulars as the Assessing Officer may require.  The Assessing Officer shall not direct the assessee to get the accounts so audited unless the assessee has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

In ‘Commissioner of Income Tax and another V. BJN Hotels Limited’ – 2016 (3) TMI 283 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT the assessee is engaged in the hotel business.   A search was conducted by the Department underSection 132 of the Act on 17.12.2004.  The Department issued notice under Section 153A with directions to file a return of income for the relevant assessment years.  The assessee filed return declaring loss.  A special audit was order on 31.03.2006 but however the same has been dropped as no opportunity was provided to the assessee.

On 30.11.2006 another notice was issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act proposing to send the books of the account of the assessee for special audit.  The assessee objected the same that there was no complexity in the accounts.  The Assessing Officer obtained the prior permission of the Commissioner on 18.12.2006 and directed the assessee to get the accounts audited.   He fixed the due date for submission of special audit on 28.02.2007.  Assessments were conducted under Section 153A read with Section 143(3).  The assessment order was sent to the assessee on 30.04.2007.

The assessee filed appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against the order.  The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal in part.  Against this order the assessee as well as the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal.  The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed are time barred and decided the case in favor of the assessee.

The Revenue approached the High Court against the order of the Tribunal and framed four questions of law as detailed below:

  • Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the time for furnishing the special audit report could not have been extended beyond 27.01.2007 being 180 days from 31.07.2006 being the date of the first direction and the order of assessment ought to have been made by 26.03.2007 and consequently the assessment order passed on 27.04.2007 is barred by limitation on the facts and circumstances of the case?
  • Whether the Tribunal is correct in law holding that the Assessing Officer does not have the powers to unilaterally withdraw the direction for special audit under Section 142(2A) of the Act, as the original direction was made with the approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax on the facts and circumstances of the case?
  • Whether the Tribunal was correct in law holding that the assessment order passed on 27.04.2007 is barred by limitation as successive direction under Section 142(2A) is not permissible and the second direction given to obtain the audit report before 28.04.2007 is to elongate the assessment proceedings and also contrary tosection 142(2C) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case?
  • Whether the assessment order is barred by limitation as it was made beyond the period of limitation on the facts and circumstances of the case?

The High Court heard both parties.  First it considered the question of law of 4th, relating  to the limitation since it goes into the root of the matter.  The High Court found that the undisputed facts are that the assessment orders were required to be issued on or before 26.03.2007, the period prescribed under law considering sixty days from January 27, 2007, the due date for special audit report as specified under Section 142(2C) of the Act.  The assessment order was passed on 27.04.2007.  Taking the second reference of the Commissioner, dated 18.12.2006 for special audit report, due date for submission of special audit report is 28.02.2007, therefore the assessment orders would have been issued on or before 29.04.2007.  The copies of the assessment orders were served on the assessee on 30.04.2007.

The Revenue contended that the assessment order was passed on 27.04.2007 and the same was dispatched to the assessee.  The High Court directed to produce the original records for the date of passing order and the dispatch of the order.  The High Court noticed certain over writing in the order sheet as regards date of passing of the order by the Assessing Officer.  The High Court also noticed that a particular page of the order sheet is maintained on a rough sheet different from other pages of the order sheet.  The Revenue is neither able to point out from the records that the assessment orders were dispatched on 27.04.2007 nor produced the dispatch register to establish that the orders are complete and effective i.e., it is issued, so as to be beyond the control of the authority concerned within the period of limitation i.e., 29.04.2007.  It is an admitted fact that the orders were served on the assessee only 30.04.2007.  The High Court was of the opinion that the assessment orders passed are barred by limitation.

The High Court relied on the judgment in ‘Government Wood Works V. State of Kerala’ – 1987 (1) TMI 451 - KERALA HIGH COURT, the Kerala High Court held that in the absence of dispatch date made available to the Court from the records, to prove that the order is issued within the prescribed period, order passed by the Assessing Officer is barred by limitation.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Internet Marketing Website Marketing Internet Promotion Internet Marketing India Website Marketing India Internet Promotion India Internet Marketing Consultancy Website Marketing Consulta

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions