9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 586X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent year 2007-08. 3. The case of the petitioner is that it is engaged in printing and publication of newspapers. Though the company was established as far back as in the year 1949, successors of the original founder are Sudershan Chopra and Vijay Kumar Chopra. Sudershan Chopra is running the business of the assessee mainly at Delhi and Jaipur, while Vijay Kumar Chopra is running the business at Jalandhar and Ambala. There was a family settlement between the parties and thereafter proceedings took place before the Company Law Board. The Company Law Board gave directions for division of the business which were affirmed by the company judge of this court, vide order dated November 4, 2008. The matter was thereafter carried to the hon'b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame which justified the direction for special audit in the earlier assessment year. Adequacy of grounds for the opinion that it was necessary to order special audit, could not be gone into. 6. In C. W. P. No. 6194 of 2010 filed on April 3, 2010, by the group B of the assessee, the same order has been challenged on almost identical grounds and is also sought to be defended on identical grounds by the counsel. 7. In C. W. P. No. 12423 of 2010 filed on July 14, 2010, during the pendency of the earlier two writ petitions, the prayer is for quashing the notice dated June 16, 2010, and for declaring continuation of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2007-08 to be illegal on account of having become time barred. Return was fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that special audit be kept in abeyance as the writ petition was pending in which notice was issued and time taken in the litigation will get condoned. 9. The question for consideration is whether the impugned order dated December 17, 2009, is liable to be quashed on the ground that the same was not in conformity with the requirements under section 142(2A) of the Act and whether the assessment proceedings are liable to be quashed on the ground of same having become time barred. 10. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that section 142(2A) of the Act requires the Assessing Officer to be satisfied objectively about the necessity of directing special audit having regard to the nature and complexity of accounts and interes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons on which the opinion may have been formed for directing special audit. Though grant of approval by the Commissioner has been mentioned, it has not been mentioned as to why it was considered necessary having regard to nature and complexity of accounts and interest of the Revenue that special audit was necessary. In the reply for the first time, it has been mentioned that special audit was necessary because of defects in accounts found during the course of special audit for the preceding assessment years 2003-04 to 2006-07. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the Revenue has produced a file which contains a letter written to the Commissioner giving reasons for necessity of special audit. The fact remains that these reasons a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
