TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds Special Auditor appointment for government company amid accounting discrepancies</h1> <h3>M/s UP. Projects Corporation Ltd. Thr. Its Managing Director Versus Commissioner of Income Tax & Another</h3> M/s UP. Projects Corporation Ltd. Thr. Its Managing Director Versus Commissioner of Income Tax & Another - TMI Issues:1. Complex discrepancies in the account books leading to the appointment of a Special Auditor under Section 142 (2A) of the Income-tax Act.Analysis:The petitioner, a government-owned company, filed a writ petition challenging the order appointing a Special Auditor for auditing its accounts for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessing Officer identified discrepancies in the accounts, particularly related to labor charges and accounting policies, which were highlighted by the Comptroller & Auditor General of India and the statutory auditors. The petitioner argued that the accounts were not complex and the order for a Special Auditor lacked objective reasoning. The Respondent contended that the discrepancies were significant, such as understated liabilities and overstatement of profits, as pointed out by the auditors and the CAG. The Respondent emphasized the need for a Special Auditor based on the complexity of the accounts, citing non-compliance with Accounting Standards. The Court noted that the Assessing Authority had made genuine efforts to understand the accounts before appointing the Special Auditor.In support of their arguments, both parties relied on relevant case laws. The Petitioner cited cases emphasizing objective assessment by the Assessing Authority, while the Respondent referred to cases where discrepancies in maintaining accounts justified the appointment of a Special Auditor. The Court distinguished the cited cases based on the specific facts and complexities of the present case. It was highlighted that the Assessing Authority's satisfaction under Section 142 (2A) should consider not only the books of accounts but also other relevant documents available during assessment. The Court clarified that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, it does not act as an appellate court, and only illegality or lack of inherent jurisdiction would be grounds for intervention.Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the appointment of the Special Auditor based on the complexity and discrepancies found in the company's accounts. The judgment emphasized the importance of the Assessing Authority's opinion regarding the nature and complexity of accounts, as well as the need for a broad interpretation of 'accounts' under the Income-tax Act to fulfill the legislative intent.
TaxTMI 