RAJESH KUMAR AND ORS. vs. D.C.I.T. AND ORS.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 4633/2006Supreme Court2006 INSC 78001 November 2006Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: S.B. SINHA, DALVEER BHANDARI B RAJESH KUMAR AND ORS.26 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The appellants, assessees under the Income Tax Act, 1961, are appealing a High Court dismissal of their writ petition. Following a raid, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax proposed a special audit under Section 142(2A) to the Commissioner. The grounds cited were the discovery of two sets of books of accounts for the same concern in separate computers for the same financial year and numerous transactions outside the books. The Commissioner approved the proposal, citing the nature and complexity of the accounts and the interests of revenue. A firm of auditors was appointed, with fees to be paid by the assessees. The assessees' request for a copy of the reasons for the special audit appointment was refused.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. It held that the prejudice to the assessee from an order under Section 142(2A) is apparent, as they must undergo further accounting despite having their accounts audited. Consequently, the principles of natural justice must be implicit in such an order to minimize arbitrariness. While the hearing need not be elaborate and reasons need not be detailed, the assessee should be put on notice to demonstrate that the accounts are not complex or that the appointment is not in the interest of revenue. The Court noted that the order under Section 142(2A) is neither purely administrative nor quasi-judicial but judicial in nature and subject to higher court review. It emphasized that the Commissioner's approval should not be mechanical but based on materials on record and any explanation from the assessee. The Court found that the assessees were not informed of the reasons for the Deputy Commissioner's opinion, which prevented them from showing that the conditions for special audit were not met. The Court also observed that maintaining two sets of accounts does not automatically imply complexity and that the power under Section 142(2A) should not be exercised for unauthorized purposes like extending limitation periods.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the principles of natural justice are implicit in the provisions of Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and whether application of mind by the assessing officer on the enumerated factors is imperative? Assessee's contention: The principles of natural justice are inherent to Section 142(2A) and require the assessing officer to apply their mind to the factors listed in the section. Revenue's contention: If principles of natural justice are implicit, their extent should be confined to the statutory requirements, not a detailed hearing. The complexity of accounts is evident from the maintenance of two sets of accounts and the parties' association with various firms. Section 142(2A) has safeguards, including approval by a senior officer, and judicial review would allow authorities to present records to satisfy the court of non-arbitrary application of mind.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(2A),Section 44AB,Section 158BE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

A B RAJESH KUMAR AND ORS. v. D.C.I.T. AND ORS. NOVEMBER l, 2006 [S.B SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] Income Tax Act, 1961--Section 142(2A)--Special audit-Proposed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax to Commissioner on grounds that for C same financial year, two sets of books of accounts found for same concern and numerous instances of transactions outside the books-Approval by Commissioner having regard to nature and complexity of accounts and interests of revenue, and firm of auditors appointed whose fees was to be paid by assessee-Assessee 's request for supply of a copy of reasons/or appointment of auditor refused, and their Writ Petition challenging the appointment, D dismissed-Correctness of-Held-As prejudice of assessee is apparent on face of order under Section 142(2A) and assessee suffers civil consequences thereby, principles of natural justice must be held to be implicit in it-It was more so as that order was not an appealable order, 'no internal remedy was prescribed, and judicial review was not an appropriate remedy-If assessee is put to notice, he could show that nature of accounts was not complex, and E appointment of auditor was not in interes

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 142(2A)

All 666 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(2A) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →