CIT vs. BISHAN SAROOP RAM KISHAN AGRO PVT LTD

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

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

ITA - 2033 / 2010HC Delhi27 May 201128 pages

For Petitioner: PL BANSAL

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 extension. The Court noted that the extension granted in this case was based on the auditor's request, which could be considered a suo motu action by the Assessing Officer, a power not available before the amendment. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the amendment inserting 'suo motu' was prospective and not clarificatory or retrospective. Therefore, the assessment order passed without a valid extension was time-barred. The Court answered the first question in the affirmative in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue, and the second question against the Revenue.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) concerning Bishan Saroop Ram Kishan Agro Pvt. Ltd. (Assessee). The core issue revolved around the validity of assessment orders passed after the expiry of the period for furnishing a special audit report. The Revenue contended that the Assessing Officer had the power to extend the time for submitting the special audit report, even if the assessee had not applied for it. The Assessee argued that the Assessing Officer's power to extend the time for furnishing the special audit report was limited and did not extend to suo motu extensions prior to a specific amendment. The dispute pertains to various assessment years, and the appeals challenge the ITAT's decision that the assessment orders were barred by limitation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessment Order was barred by limitation, considering the provisions of Section 142(2C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it stood prior to its amendment, regarding the extension of time for furnishing a special audit report. The Assessee contended that the Assessing Officer lacked the power to extend the time for furnishing the special audit report suo motu before the amendment effective from April 1, 2008, and since no application was made by the assessee, the extension granted was invalid, rendering the assessment order time-barred. The Revenue argued that the Assessing Officer had the inherent power to extend the time for furnishing the special audit report. 2. Whether the amendment to Section 142(2C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, inserting the word 'suo motu', was clarificatory or retrospective in nature. The Assessee argued that the amendment was prospective, effective from April 1, 2008, and therefore, did not apply to the period in question. The Revenue contended that the amendment was clarificatory and should be applied retrospectively.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

2011:DHC:14305-DB

More judgments on Section 142(2C)

American Infoserv Private Limited, Hyderabad vs DCIT., Circle 1(1), Hyderabad
ITA 654/HYD/2025[2010-11]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2026AY 2010-11
American Infoserv Private Limited, Hyderabad vs DCIT., Circle 1(1), Hyderabad
ITA 653/HYD/2025[2009-10]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2026AY 2009-10
DCIT Circle-19(1), New Delhi vs Patanjali Ayurved Ltd, New Delhi
ITA 1990/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: Disposed27 Dec 2024AY 2012-13
DCIT Circle-19(1), New Delhi vs Patanjali Ayurved Ltd, New Delhi
ITA 1988/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: Disposed27 Dec 2024AY 2010-11
DCIT Circle-19(1), New Delhi vs Patanjali Ayurved Ltd, New Delhi
ITA 429/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

All 83 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(2C) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →