CIT vs. RAM KISHAN DASS

Q: Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(2A), Section 142(2C)

ITA - 170 / 2011HC Delhi27 May 201131 pages

For Petitioner: RASHMI CHOPRA

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Assessment Order was barred by limitation. The Court reasoned that prior to the amendment of Section 142(2C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, effective from April 1, 2008, the Assessing Officer did not have the power to extend the period for furnishing a special audit report suo motu. The proviso to Section 142(2C) required an application from the assessee with good and sufficient reasons for such an extension. In this case, the extension was granted at the request of the auditor, not upon an application by the assessee, and the amendment allowing suo motu extensions was prospective. Therefore, the assessment order passed after the expiry of the original period for the audit report, without a valid extension, was invalid. The Court answered the first question in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The Court also concluded that the amendment was prospective and not clarificatory or retrospective, answering the second question against the revenue.

What were the facts?

The appeals by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) challenge orders concerning Bishan Saroop Ram Kishan Agro Pvt. Ltd. and Ram Kishan Dass. The core issue revolves around the validity of assessment orders passed after the expiry of the period for furnishing a special audit report, where the Assessing Officer extended this period without an application from the assessee. The amendment to Section 142(2C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which introduced the power for the Assessing Officer to extend the period suo motu, was effective from April 1, 2008. The assessments in question were made prior to this amendment, and the extensions were granted at the auditor's request, not upon an application by the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessment Order was barred by limitation, considering the extension of the special audit report period granted by the Assessing Officer without an application from the assessee, prior to the amendment of Section 142(2C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which allowed for suo motu extensions. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argues that the Assessing Officer lacked the power to extend the special audit report period prior to April 1, 2008, as the proviso to Section 142(2C) required an application from the assessee with good and sufficient reasons. Since no such application was made, and the extension was granted at the auditor's request, the subsequent assessment order is barred by limitation. Revenue's Contention: The revenue likely contends that the extension was valid, possibly interpreting the proviso differently or arguing for a retrospective application of the amendment, though their specific arguments are not detailed in the provided text.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(2A),Section 142(2C)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

2011:DHC:14418-DB

More judgments on Section 142(2A)

Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Mohali
ITA 636/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…
ITA 635/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…
ITA 634/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…
ITA 633/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
Trinity Infraventures Limited, New Delhi vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…
ITA 788/HYD/2020[2010-11]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2010-11

All 676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(2A) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →