Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2004 (4) TMI 42

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ismissed. - the impugned directions have to be given effect to by getting the accounts of the petitioner audited strictly in accordance with the requirement of the Act and the rules framed thereunder to enable the Assessing Officer to make assessments within the time specified in accordance with law. - - - - - Dated:- 5-4-2004 - Judge(s) : A. M. SAPRE. JUDGMENT A.M. SAPRE J. - The decision rendered in this writ shall also govern disposal of other connected writ petitions being W.P. Nos. 9430, 9437, 9472, 9473, 9474, 9492, 9493, 9494, 9534 and 9535 of 2003, as in all these writs, common question of law is involved. The short question that arises for consideration in these petitions is, whether respondent No. 1-Assistant Commissione .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to huge transactions in benami names outside the regular books of account. It was also noticed that there were evasions, alterations and corrections in the regular books of account maintained in the course of the business which did not reflect the correct income of the assessee. Since, it was a case of raid, the block assessment proceedings as contemplated under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act for the period April 1, 1995 to September 25, 2001, have been initiated. It is in the course of these assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed the aforementioned infirmities in the books of account of the petitioner which led to passing of the impugned order (annexure P5) by taking recourse to the provisions of section 142(2A) ibid di .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hen it directed the petitioner to get the audit done in terms of section 142(2A) of the Act. Indeed, in view of the admitted and peculiar facts of the case, the authority specified in section 142(2A) ibid was justified in directing the petitioner to get the audit of his/their books of account done from an accountant mentioned in the impugned order. As taken note of supra, it is not in dispute that the block assessment proceedings in question are initiated in consequence of the raid conducted in the petitioner's business premises. It is also not in dispute that in this raid, the Department was able to collect/seize several incriminating documents indicating the petitioner's as also his associates' involvement in various kinds of benami tra .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tioner that there was no material on record for forming an opinion, or that there was no application of mind to the facts of the case before passing the impugned order. I am supported by authorities reported in Kumar Films P. Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 257 (Patna); Shiv Kant and Bros. v. Union of India [2004] 270 ITR 499 (Raj) and Living Media Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 268 (SC). In my opinion, it is the subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned to decide on the basis of the material on record, as to whether the accounts are complex in nature, or not. The word "complex" is not defined in the Act and hence, it has to be given its wide and liberal meaning. As in this case, if the authority noticed that a large number of transaction .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... p called the Shimla group wherein all cases of these assessees are interlinked, coupled with the fact that the proceedings for the assessment year 2002-03 are pending it is sufficient to attract the rigour of section 142(2A) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on Onkarji Kasturchand (HUF) v. WTO [1982] 135 ITR 188 (MP); ITO v. James Joseph O'Gorman [1993] 204 ITR 454 (Cal); G.M. Breweries Ltd. v. Union of India [2000] 241 ITR 446 (Bom); Abhay Kumar and Co. v. Union of India [1987] 164 ITR 148 (Raj) and Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1988] 171 ITR 634 (All). I have gone through the view expressed in these cases. In my view, the facts of the case in hand make these cases distinguishable. Since I have come .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates