Court Upholds Income Tax Special Audit, Grants Extension for Appeal

The court dismissed both petitions challenging the directions dated 22.4.2021 issued under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It held that the directions for a special audit by a nominated accountant were not arbitrary or illegal. The court emphasized that the Assessing Officer's power to order a special audit considers the nature, complexity, and correctness of accounts, as well as the specialized nature of business activities and revenue interests. The court extended the interim relief granted to the petitioners to appeal to a higher forum, excluding the period of pending petitions from the limitation period calculation under Section 142(2C) of the Act.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the impugned directions dated 22.4.2021 issued under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Scope and legality of the directions issued by the Assessing Officer for special audit.
3. Whether the Assessing Officer's directions constitute a delegation of judicial functions to the special auditor.
4. Applicability and interpretation of Section 142(2A) post-amendment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to the Impugned Directions Dated 22.4.2021:
The petitioners initially challenged both the order dated 8.4.2021 and the directions dated 22.4.2021. However, during the hearing, the petitioners confined their challenge to the directions dated 22.4.2021. The court noted that the prayer regarding the order dated 8.4.2021 stood rejected as not pressed. The court was thus required to examine only the legality of the directions dated 22.4.2021, which directed the petitioners to get their accounts audited by a nominated accountant and furnish a report in Form No.6B.

2. Scope and Legality of the Directions Issued by the Assessing Officer for Special Audit:
The court elaborated on the scope of Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, which allows the Assessing Officer to direct a special audit considering the nature, complexity, volume, and correctness of the accounts, among other factors. The court emphasized that the special audit involves more than just verifying books and vouchers; it includes submission of explanations and clarifications, making it akin to an investigation. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Sahara India (Firm) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax & Anr., which stated that special audit entails civil consequences and is more investigative in nature.

3. Whether the Assessing Officer's Directions Constitute a Delegation of Judicial Functions to the Special Auditor:
The petitioners argued that the directions issued by the Assessing Officer improperly delegated judicial functions to the special auditor. The court rejected this argument, noting that the special audit under Section 142(2A) is intended to assist the Assessing Officer in understanding complex accounts and transactions. The court cited the amended Section 142(2A) and the decision in Tehmul Burjor Shethna Vs. ACIT, which clarified that the scope of Section 142(2A) has been widened to include not just the complexity of accounts but also the specialized nature of business activities and the interests of revenue. The court also noted that the special auditor is permitted to call for explanations and clarifications on various issues, including legal ones, as part of the audit process.

4. Applicability and Interpretation of Section 142(2A) Post-Amendment:
The court discussed the amendments to Section 142(2A) effective from 1.6.2013, which expanded the scope of the provision. The court highlighted that the Assessing Officer's power to direct a special audit now includes considerations of the specialized nature of business activities and the interests of revenue. The court emphasized that the Assessing Officer's directions for a special audit are valid as long as they are within the scope of Section 142(2A) and are not arbitrary or illegal. The court also noted that the detailed comments provided by the respondent justified each direction issued by the Assessing Officer.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed both petitions, holding that the directions issued by the Assessing Officer were neither arbitrary nor illegal. The court also directed that the period during which the petitions remained pending should be excluded for calculating the limitation period under Section 142(2C) of the Act. The interim relief granted to the petitioners was extended to allow them to approach a higher forum.

---