Rajesh Kumar v. DCIT

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Unitech Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on preliminary ground, appeal of Revenue and its CO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri O.P. Kantआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 6181/Del/2015 With Co No.376/Del/2015 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Unitech Limited Dcit, Cir.27(1) 6, Community Centre Vs New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi 17. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2018 O R D E R

…Section 142(2A) cannot be invoked. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to first examine the books of account and form his opinion regarding the nature and complexity of accounts. The hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar v DCIT (287 ITR 91) held that the satisfaction of the authorities should not be a subjective satisfaction. It should be based on objective assessment regard being to the nature of the accounts. The nature of the accounts must indeed be a complex nature. That is the primary requirement for directing a special audit. What is complex to one may be simple to another. It…

M/S. Unitech Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on preliminary ground, appeal of Revenue and its CO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri O.P. Kantआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 6181/Del/2015 With Co No.376/Del/2015 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Unitech Limited Dcit, Cir.27(1) 6, Community Centre Vs New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi 17. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2018 O R D E R

…Section 142(2A) cannot be invoked. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to first examine the books of account and form his opinion regarding the nature and complexity of accounts. The hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar v DCIT (287 ITR 91) held that the satisfaction of the authorities should not be a subjective satisfaction. It should be based on objective assessment regard being to the nature of the accounts. The nature of the accounts must indeed be a complex nature. That is the primary requirement for directing a special audit. What is complex to one may be simple to another. It…

Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range 12

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…B as and when the guidelines of the NHB are revised? In other words, is it an instance of incorporation of the NHB guidelines into Rule 6EB by reference? In this context, the expression “having regard to” is relevant. 18. In Rajesh Kumar v. DCIT (2006) 287 ITR 91, the Supreme Court was considering the ambit of the expression “having regard to” under Section 142(2A) of the Act which empowers the AO to direct an audit of the accounts of an Assessee. The Supreme Court held that factors like the nature of accounts; complexity of accounts and interest of the revenue were an important criteria but “are not…

Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range 12

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…B as and when the guidelines of the NHB are revised? In other words, is it an instance of incorporation of the NHB guidelines into Rule 6EB by reference? In this context, the expression “having regard to” is relevant. 18. In Rajesh Kumar v. DCIT (2006) 287 ITR 91, the Supreme Court was considering the ambit of the expression “having regard to” under Section 142(2A) of the Act which empowers the AO to direct an audit of the accounts of an Assessee. The Supreme Court held that factors like the nature of accounts; complexity of accounts and interest of the revenue were an important criteria but “are not…

Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range 12

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPECIAL BENCHES

…B as and when the guidelines of the NHB are revised? In other words, is it an instance of incorporation of the NHB guidelines into Rule 6EB by reference? In this context, the expression “having regard to” is relevant. 18. In Rajesh Kumar v. DCIT (2006) 287 ITR 91, the Supreme Court was considering the ambit of the expression “having regard to” under Section 142(2A) of the Act which empowers the AO to direct an audit of the accounts of an Assessee. The Supreme Court held that factors like the nature of accounts; complexity of accounts and interest of the revenue were an important criteria but “are not…

M/S Unitech Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals is allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Unitech Ltd., Vs. Additional Cit, 6-Community Centre, Range-18, Saket, New Delhi-1100 17 New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacu1482H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Additional Cit, Vs. M/S. Unitech Ltd., Range-18, 6-Community Centre, New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi (Pan: Aaacu1482H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv., Gautam And, Ca & Shjalesh Gupta, Ca Department By: S/Shri Dilip Shivpuri & Ruchir Bhatia, Government Standing Counsels Date Of Hearing : 12 .01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 :04.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:These Cross Appeals Preferred By Assessee & Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-Xxi, New Delhi Dated 16.8.2013 & Relate To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Appellant-Assessee Is A Public Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Construction & Development Of Real Estate Projects. For The Assessment Year Under Consideration, It Filed A Return Declaring An Income Of Rs. 922,30,17,671/- On 29.9.2009, Which Came To Be Assessed At An Income Of Rs. 3361,18,87,560/- In An Order Dated 1.8.2012 Under Section 143(3) Of The Act. On Appeal, Learned Cit(A) Granted Part Relief To The Appellant & Hence The Appeals Before Us.

…(2A) of the Act was not an appealable order and therefore any submission to the effect that order u/s 142(2A) is an invalid order in 20 the instant proceedings is not tenable. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar and Ors. Vs. DCIT 287 ITR 91(SC) was cited in support of the above submission. It was submitted that the appellant having not challenged the order u/s 142(2A) of the Act in an appropriate proceedings was therefore precluded for raising such a plea in the instant proceedings. It was submitted that period of limitation stood extended by 180 days in terms of section 142(2C) read…