2015 (5) TMI 11

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....objectively consider the material available with him and reach a bona fide conclusion/opinion that special audit u/s.142(2A) is essential in view of complexity of accounts coupled with interest of Revenue. Before us, no such document could be produced by the Ld. Departmental Representative whereby the A.O. has formed such opinion in terms of Sec.142(2A), as stated above. In the letter issued from the office of the C.I.T. Jalpaiguri to the A.C.I.T. Cir-2, Siliguri, there was mention of two letters bearing Nos.130 & 316 dated 26.06.2000 and 10.09.2000. But copies of these two letters were not produced before us. Furthermore, those letters were written before the start of the block assessment proceedings on 15.12.2000. Therefore, it is evident....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(2A). We have already examined this contention of the Revenue and we have noticed that there is no order for getting the accounts audited u/s. 142(2A) by the A.O.. The A.O. has simply forwarded such forwarding letter no time limit is prescribed within which the audit is to be completed. Therefore, in our opinion, the conditions prescribed in clause (ii) of Explanation I below Sec. 158BE(2) are not satisfied and, therefore, the A.O. was required to complete the audit as per Sec. 158BE(1)(b). The search has taken place at the assessee's premises on 18.08.1999. The two years from the end of the month would complete on 31.08.2001. The assessment order is passed by the A.O. on 28.01.2002, which is clearly barred by limitation. Therefore, the ass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....period of limitation. It is not also in dispute that the delay is of 150 days under Section 158BE2 (b). If the period of audit comprising of 163 days is to be excluded, the natural consequence will be that the assessment was within time. Mr. Bharadwaj, learned advocate, however, contended that the audit is of no consequence because the order required under section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act was never passed. Therefore, the period consumed by audit cannot be excluded. He also relied upon the views expressed by the Tribunal quoted above. We have not been impressed by this submission. The fact that the audit was in fact made is ample proof of the fact that an order for audit was also passed without which the audit could not have taken....