Bombay High Court Admits Writ Petition Challenging Special Audit Order Under Section 142(2A) of Income Tax Act, 1961 — Issue of Pre-decisional Hearing Referred to Larger Bench. The court admitted the petition as the same legal issue regarding the necessity of a hearing before a special audit direction was already pending in another admitted writ petition.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 73
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 11th November 2005 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 4(1), Mumbai, directing a special audit under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2003-04. The petitioner contended that no opportunity of hearing was given before passing the order, which violated principles of natural justice. The court noted that a similar issue was already admitted in Writ Petition No.1314 of 2004, Maharashtra Distilleries Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, where the question was whether an opportunity of hearing is required before an order under Section 142(2A) is passed. The court decided to consider the matter finally at the admission stage and, after hearing the parties, admitted the writ petition. The court did not pass any interim order but directed that the petition be heard along with the connected matter. The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench of Justices R.M. Lodha and J.P. Devadhar on 7th March 2006.

Headnote

A) Income Tax - Special Audit - Section 142(2A) of Income Tax Act, 1961 - Natural Justice - The issue involved is whether before passing an order under Section 142(2A) directing special audit, an opportunity of hearing must be afforded to the assessee. The court admitted the writ petition as the same issue was already admitted in another writ petition (Maharashtra Distilleries Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax). (Paras 1-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether before passing an order under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 directing special audit, an opportunity of hearing needs to be given to the assessee.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court admitted the writ petition and directed that it be heard along with the connected matter. No interim order was passed.

Law Points

  • Natural justice
  • pre-decisional hearing
  • Section 142(2A) of Income Tax Act
  • 1961
  • special audit
  • opportunity of hearing
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2006 LawText (BOM) (03) 88

Writ Petition No.27 of 2006

2006-03-07

R.M. Lodha, J.P. Devadhar

Mr. F.V. Irani i/b Mr. A.K. Jasani for the petitioner; Mr. Ashok Kotangale with Mr. S.R. Chauhan, Mr. Prashant Uchil & Mr. A. Nagarjun for the respondents

Atlas Copco (India) Limited

V.S. Samuel, Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range 4(1), Mumbai; D.D. Gupta, Commissioner of Income-tax, City-IV, Mumbai; Sudhir Chandra, Chief Commissioner of Income-tax IV, Mumbai; Lakhani & Company, Chartered Accountants; T. Diwakar Prasad, Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 8, Pune; Satya Prakash, Commissioner of Income-tax-V, Pune; S.M. Gadgil, Chief Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Pune; Union of India

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging an order directing special audit under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Remedy Sought

The petitioner sought to challenge the order dated 11th November 2005 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax directing special audit for assessment year 2003-04.

Filing Reason

The petitioner contended that no opportunity of hearing was given before passing the order under Section 142(2A).

Previous Decisions

A similar issue was already admitted in Writ Petition No.1314 of 2004, Maharashtra Distilleries Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.

Issues

Whether before passing an order under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 directing special audit, an opportunity of hearing needs to be given to the assessee.

Submissions/Arguments

The learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention to the order in Writ Petition No.1314 of 2004, Maharashtra Distilleries Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, where the same issue was admitted, and submitted that this writ petition be also admitted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court admitted the writ petition because the issue of whether an opportunity of hearing is required before an order under Section 142(2A) is passed was already admitted in another writ petition, and it was appropriate to consider the matter finally at the admission stage.

Judgment Excerpts

At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1314 of 2004, Maharashtra Distilleries Limited V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 6(3), Mumbai & Others on 27th July, 2004 and submitted that since the said writ petition has been admitted wherein the issue is involved whether before passing the order under Section 142(2A) an opportunity of hearing needs to be given to the assessee or not and as in the present writ petition the said issue is also raised, this writ petition be also admitted. We thought that it would be better if we consider this aspect finally at the admission stage. Hence, we heard the matter accordingly. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 11th November, 2005 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 4(1), Mumbai whereby he issued direction to the petitioner for a special audit under Section 142(2A) for the assessment year 2003-04.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.27 of 2006 challenging an order dated 11th November 2005 under Section 142(2A). At the hearing, the petitioner's counsel referred to an earlier order in Writ Petition No.1314 of 2004 where a similar issue was admitted. The court decided to hear the matter finally at the admission stage and admitted the writ petition on 7th March 2006.

Acts & Sections

  • Income Tax Act, 1961: 142(2A)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Admits Writ Petition Challenging Special Audit Order Under Section 142(2A) of Income Tax Act, 1961 — Issue of Pre-decisional Hearing Referred to Larger Bench. The court admitted the petition as the same legal issue regarding the n...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows SICOM Limited's Petition Under Section 31(1)(aa) of SFC Act for Recovery of Loan Against Guarantors. Court holds that guarantors are jointly and severally liable for the debt of the principal borrower company.