Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
$~34 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 568/2023
PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL ..... Appellant Through: Mr Sanjeev Menon, Standing Counsel.
versus
SOUL SPACE PROJECTS LTD
..... Respondent
Through: Mr Rohit Jain with Mr Aniket D.
Agrawal and Mr Abhishek, Singhvi,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
O R D E R %
09.10.2023 Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
ITA 568/2023 & CM No. 51976/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 446 days in re-filing the appeal] 1. Mr Sanjeev Menon, learned standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, says that the issues that arise in the instant appeal also obtains in ITA No. 526/2023 and that the same is listed on 11.10.2023. 2. Accordingly, list the above-captioned appeal as well as the application on 11.10.2023. 3. We may note that this appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2008- 09. 4. Via, the instant appeal the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 03.06.2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”]. ITA 568/2023
Page 1 of 2 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:25:27
The Tribunal had allowed the cross-objection of the assessee regarding the extension of the timeframe granted by the Assessing Officer (AO) for the conduct of an audit under Section 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [in short, “Act”]. 6. It is not in dispute that the AO had taken the approval of the specified authority i.e., Commissioner of Income Tax [in short, “CIT”] while appointing the auditor. 7. However, when an extension of time was sought by the auditor, on account of the respondent/assessee not cooperating, the AO, once again, sought the approval of the CIT. 8. According to the respondent/assessee, this violated the proviso appended to Section 142(2C) of the Act. 9. The respondent/assessee contends that an extension of the timeframe could have been ordered by the AO on his own i.e., suo motu, or on an application moved by the respondent/assessee, albeit, for any good and sufficient reason. 10. This aspect of the matter will be examined on the next date of hearing. 11. List the matter on 11.10.2023. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
GIRISH KATHPALIA, J OCTOBER 9, 2023/RY
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
ITA 568/2023
Page 2 of 2
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:25:27