PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONEROFINCOME TAX-07 vs. M/S PHI SEEDS LTD.,

PDF · subscribers
ITA/411/2016HC DelhiDLHC01158090201603 August 2016Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the issue of the Assessing Officer's power to suo motu extend the time limit for a special auditor's report was already decided in favor of the assessee. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed appeals against an ITAT order concerning the powers of the Assessing Officer to extend the time limit for a special auditor's report. This issue pertains to the period before an amendment to Section 142(2C) of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer had the power to suo motu extend the time limit for a special auditor's report prior to the amendment of Section 142(2C) of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

$~1 to 6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 410/2016 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-07 Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate versus M/S PHI SEEDS LTD., Respondent Through: Mr. Shashi M Kapila, Mr. R.R. Maurya, Mr. Pravesh Sharma, Ms. Malvika Kalra and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocates. With 2. + ITA 411/2016 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONEROFINCOME TAX-07 Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate versus M/S PHI SEEDS LTD. Respondent Through: Mr. Shashi M Kapila,. Mr. R.R. Maurya, Mr. Pravesh Sharma, Ms. Malvika Kalra and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocates. With 3. + ITA 412/2016 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-07 Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate versus M/S PHI SEEDS LTD. Respondent Through: Mr. Shashi M Kapila, Mr. R.R. Maurya, Mr. Pravesh Sharma, Ms. Malvika Kalra ITA 410 to 415 of 2016 Page 1 of 4 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified

and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocates. With 4. + ITA 413/2016 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-07 Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate versus I M/S PHI SEEDS LTD. Respondent Through: Mr. Shashi M Kapila, Mr. R.R. Maurya, Mr. Pravesh Sharma, Ms. Malvika Kalra and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocates. With 5. + ITA 414/2016 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-07 Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate versus M/S PHI SEEDS LTD. Respondent Through: Mr. Shashi M Kapila, Mr. R.R. Maurya, Mr. Pravesh Sharma, Ms. Malvika Kalra and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocates. And 6. + ITA 415/2016 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX-07 Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate versus M/S Pm SEEDS LTD. Respondent Through: Mr. Shashi M Kapila, Mr. R.R. Maurya, Mr. Pravesh Sharma, Ms. Malvika Kalra ITA 410 to 415 of 2016 Page 2 of 4

and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI ORDER % 03.08.2016 CM APPL. 25522/2016 (Exemption) in ITA 410/2016 CM APPL. 25523/2016 (Exemption) in ITA 411/2016 CM APPL. 25524/2016 (Exemption) in ITA 412/2016 CM APPL. 25525/2016 (Exemption) in ITA 413/2016 CM APPL. 25528/2016 (Exemption) in ITA 414/2016 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. ITA 410/2016. ITA 411/2016. ITA 412/2016. ITA 413/2016. ITA 414/2016 & ITA 415/2016 2. These appeals are filed against a common order dated 9'*^ December 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 2256- 2261/Del/2005 for the Assessment Years ('AYs') 1996-97 to 2001-2002. 3. The issue urged by the Revenue in the present appeals concerns the powers of the Assessing Officer, prior to amendment in Section 142 (2C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') with effect from 1®^ April 2008, to suo motu extend the time limit for the special auditor to submit his report in terms of Section 142 (2 A) of the Act. 4. It is not in dispute that said question stands answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bishan Saroop Ram Kishan Agro (P) Ltd (2011) 203 Taxman 326 (Del). ITA 410 to 415 of 2016 Page 3 of 4

5.

Consequently, no substantial question of law arises. 6. The appeals are dismissed. AUGUST 03,2016 acm S.MURALIDHAR, J NAJMIWAZIRI, J ITA 410 to 415 of 2016 Page 4 of 4

More judgments on Section 142(2A)

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →