CIT vs. RAM KISHAN DASS

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

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

ITA - 1794 / 2010HC 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 (AO) did not have the power to extend the period for furnishing a special audit report suo motu. The proviso to Section 142(2C) before the amendment required an application from the assessee and good and sufficient reasons for extension. The amendment introducing the 'suo motu' power was prospective and not clarificatory. Since the extension in this case was granted without an assessee's application and before the amendment, it was invalid. Consequently, the assessment order passed after the expiry of the original period for the audit report was time-barred. The Court answered the first question in the affirmative in favour of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The respondents were Ram Kishan Dass, Sunder Exports, and Bishan Saroop Ram Kishan Agro Pvt. Ltd. (Assessees). The core issue revolved around the validity of assessment orders passed after the expiry of the period for furnishing a special audit report, where the extension was granted by the Assessing Officer (AO) without an application from the assessee and prior to the amendment of Section 142(2C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which allowed the AO to extend the period suo motu. The assessment years in question are not explicitly stated for all cases but are implied to be prior to the amendment effective from April 1, 2008.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessment Order was barred by limitation, considering the extension granted for furnishing the special audit report by the Assessing Officer (AO) without an application from the assessee, prior to the amendment of Section 142(2C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (mixed question of law and fact). Assessee's contention: The AO's extension of time for submitting the special audit report, granted on the auditor's request and without an assessee's application, was invalid as the AO lacked the power to extend the period suo motu before the amendment to Section 142(2C) effective from April 1, 2008. Therefore, the assessment order passed subsequently was barred by limitation. Revenue's contention: The revenue likely argued that the extension was valid, possibly relying on the interpretation that the AO had inherent powers or that the amendment was clarificatory. The judgment does not explicitly detail the revenue's arguments beyond what can be inferred from the court's reasoning.

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:14309-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 →