2012 (10) TMI 180

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d not care to fix its remuneration and pay 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of fees of the auditor under Section 142 (2A) of the Income 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dated 21.09.2012; a copy of that order has been produced claiming 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 ....