9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay the fee. It, therefore, seeks an appropriate direction for fixation of fee and its payment. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as special auditor under Section 142(2A) of the Act by order dated 30.03.2006. It completed the task and submitted its report on 22.09.2006 and apparently also submitted the bill to the income tax department around that time. The writ petition narrates the series of representations made after September, 2006 i.e. 22.11.2006, 25.09.2007, 04.03.2008, 18.03.2008, 29.08.2008 and 20.09.2008 by payment of the bill for the audit services. Its requests were unsuccessful and eventually it was constrained to move C.M. No.19286/2011 before this Court in W.P. (C) No.4297/2007 for appropriate direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tax Act, 1961 since it is stated that fee of the auditor is more than Rs.20 lacs. We make it clear that the special auditor may recover the amount from the Income Tax Department but whether the amount has to be recovered from the Petitioner or not, will be decided at the time of final hearing of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the Petitioner prays for a stay of recovery of the demand arising out of the assessment order dated 20th November, 2006. It is not clear from the record whether the Petitioner has approached the statutory authorities for any such relief. The Petitioner in this regard may file an appropriate application giving the full facts. CM stands disposed of." The aforesaid order is clear that the chartered accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be in compliance; a cheque for Rs.12,96,541/- was prepared and made over to the petitioner on 24.09.2012. The learned counsel for the Revenue has produced a copy of the cheque as well as forwarding letter again dated 24.09.2012. Mr. Shambhu Singh learned counsel for the petitioner, says that the fixation of fee was not as per the norms prescribed by ICAI in terms of Section 142(2D). It is submitted that the writ petitioner was substantially under-paid and this Court ought examine and determine the fee. Learned counsel for the Revenue on the other hand contains that the fixation of fee is in accordance with the norms applicable which prevailed at that point of time and the order of the Commissioner is appealable. 5. This Court is of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the period 01.01.2007 till 24.09.2012 when the amount was actually paid. The writ petitioner's rights to claim any further amount either by way of balance fee or interest thereon are expressly reserved. Having regard to these circumstances the Court directs payment of Rs.50,000/- as costs to the writ petitioner. The costs shall be paid within two weeks. 6. The Court hereby directs the Chief Commissioner to conduct an inquiry and fix responsibility of the person or persons who was/were responsible for the delay and the said costs shall be deducted from the salary of the concerned person or persons. The action taken report in this regard for compliance with these directions be filed within eight weeks. List on 19.11.2012. Order dasti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
