Traxpo Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kol Iv, Kol and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1119578
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided OnJan-20-2014
JudgeHARISH TANDON
AppellantTraxpo Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
RespondentCommissioner of Income Tax, Kol Iv, Kol and ors.
Excerpt:
order sheet wp no.1138 of 2013 in the high court at calcutta constitutional writ jurisdiction original side traxpo enterprises pvt.ltd.versus commissioner of income tax, kol - iv, kol & ors.before: the hon'ble justice harish tandon date : 20th january, 2014. appearance: mr.samit talukdar sr.adv.mr.ananda sen, adv.mr.atish mukherjee, adv.ms.asha g. gutgutia, adv.the court: the petitioner has assailed the order dated march 25, 2013 passed by the commissioner of income tax, kolkata, under section 142 (2a) of the income tax act, 1961 directing the audit to be made by an independent chartered accountant. the bone of contention in this writ petition is that the authorities before passing the aforesaid order of a special audit under section 142(2a) of the said act did not give an opportunity of hearing. mr.talukdar, learned senior advocate, further submits that the authorities have not recorded their findings relating to the interest of the revenue either in the show cause notice or in the impugned order and, therefore, the conditions as enshrined under the aforesaid provision are not complied with. upon perusal of the show cause notice dated march 14, 2013, the authority sought to conduct a special audit under the aforesaid provision and asked for the reply from the petitioner. the show cause notice was preceded by reason for the special audit which is annexed thereto. in paragraph 52 of the said reasons, it could be clearly discernible that the interest of the revenue was clearly indicated apart from the complexity of the accounts of the assessee. admittedly, the petitioner filed the reply to a show cause notice on march 9, 2013 and, simultaneously, therewith a proposal was noted to proceed for a decision to conduct the special audit. a date was fixed on 21st march, 2013 for affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and paragraph 2 of the impugned order reveals the appearance of the chartered accountants on behalf of the petitioner. to eradicate the complexity as to the nature of the accounts, the commissioner found that an independent audit i.e.the special audit is required to be made upon invocation of the provisions of section 142(2a) of the said act. from the sequel of the events, this court does not agree with the submission of mr.talukdar that no opportunity of hearing was given before passing the impugned order, nor does this court concur with the submission that the authorities did not adhere to the said provision in absence of any recording of the interest of revenue. this court, therefore, does not find any merit in this writ petition. the same is hereby dismissed. there shall be no order as to costs. cs. (harish tandon, j.)
Judgment:

ORDER

SHEET WP No.1138 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE TRAXPO ENTERPRISES PVT.LTD.Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL - IV, KOL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 20th January, 2014.

Appearance: Mr.Samit Talukdar Sr.Adv.Mr.Ananda Sen, Adv.Mr.Atish Mukherjee, Adv.Ms.Asha G.

Gutgutia, Adv.The Court: The petitioner has assailed the order dated March 25, 2013 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata, Under Section 142 (2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 directing the audit to be made by an independent Chartered Accountant.

The bone of contention in this writ petition is that the authorities before passing the aforesaid order of a special audit under Section 142(2A) of the said Act did not give an opportunity of hearing.

Mr.Talukdar, learned Senior Advocate, further submits that the authorities have not recorded their findings relating to the interest of the revenue either in the show cause notice or in the impugned order and, therefore, the conditions as enshrined under the aforesaid provision are not complied with.

Upon perusal of the show cause notice dated March 14, 2013, the authority sought to conduct a special audit under the aforesaid provision and asked for the reply from the petitioner.

The show cause notice was preceded by reason for the special audit which is annexed thereto.

In paragraph 52 of the said reasons, it could be clearly discernible that the interest of the Revenue was clearly indicated apart from the complexity of the accounts of the assessee.

Admittedly, the petitioner filed the reply to a show cause notice on March 9, 2013 and, simultaneously, therewith a proposal was noted to proceed for a decision to conduct the special audit.

A date was fixed on 21st March, 2013 for affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and Paragraph 2 of the impugned order reveals the appearance of the Chartered Accountants on behalf of the petitioner.

To eradicate the complexity as to the nature of the accounts, the Commissioner found that an independent audit i.e.the special audit is required to be made upon invocation of the provisions of Section 142(2A) of the said Act.

From the sequel of the events, this Court does not agree with the submission of Mr.Talukdar that no opportunity of hearing was given before passing the impugned order, nor does this Court concur with the submission that the authorities did not adhere to the said provision in absence of any recording of the interest of revenue.

This Court, therefore, does not find any merit in this writ petition.

The same is hereby dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Cs.

(HARISH TANDON, J.)