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>Special Audit Order Validated Despite Challenge on Natural Justice</h1> <h3>M/s. JP Jai Land & Building Promoters P Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax – I, Chennai, The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle II (3), Chennai, M/s. Sundaram and Srinivasan, Chennai</h3> M/s. JP Jai Land & Building Promoters P Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax – I, Chennai, The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle ... Issues Involved:1. Legal validity of the order dated 16.12.2011 appointing a Special Audit under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Compliance with principles of natural justice.3. Requirement and adequacy of a show cause notice under Section 142(2A).4. Pre-decisional versus post-decisional hearing rights.Detailed Analysis:1. Legal Validity of the Order Appointing Special Audit:The petitioner challenged the order dated 16.12.2011, which appointed a Special Audit under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, during the pending assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The petitioner sought the completion of the scrutiny assessment based on the regular audit report already filed.2. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:The petitioner argued that the order dated 09.12.2011, which led to the appointment of the Special Audit, violated the principles of natural justice. It was contended that the order did not serve as a proper show cause notice, as required under Section 142(2A), and that the authority had pre-determined the issues without hearing the petitioner.3. Requirement and Adequacy of a Show Cause Notice:The petitioner claimed that the proceedings dated 09.12.2011 could not be considered a show cause notice because it lacked an explicit invitation for objections or explanations. However, the court noted that the petitioner had treated the 09.12.2011 proceedings as a show cause notice by submitting objections on 15.12.2011. The court also emphasized that a provisional decision based on available materials is necessary to enable the assessee to submit objections effectively.4. Pre-decisional versus Post-decisional Hearing Rights:The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Sahara India (Firm) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, which highlighted the necessity of pre-decisional hearings. The Supreme Court had ruled that post-decisional hearings cannot substitute pre-decisional hearings. The court distinguished the present case from Sahara India, noting that the petitioner was given an opportunity to object to the provisional decision before the final order was passed.Court's Conclusion:The court concluded that the proceedings dated 09.12.2011, although not explicitly termed as a show cause notice, were effectively treated as such by both parties. The petitioner was provided with opportunities to submit objections, which were considered before the final order dated 16.12.2011 was issued. The court found no violation of natural justice principles and upheld the legality of the order appointing the Special Audit. The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to cooperate with the Special Audit for the timely completion of the assessment process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
