2016 (5) TMI 802

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....read as under: 1. Whether the ITAT is competent to adjudicate the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) under the proviso to Section 142(2C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') which is not provided either under section 246A or 253 of the Act? 2. Whether the ITAT is competent to admit an issue for the first time where there was no material in the assessment or in the order of the CIT(A) on the basis of quite the issue of validity of the order of the AO under proviso to Section 142(2C) of the Act could be raised and considered? 3. Whether the AO is competent to extend the period for filing the audit report on the expressed request of the nominated auditor under proviso to section 142(2C) read with section 142(2A) of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ctober 2004 was barred by limitation. The said question was intrinsically linked to the question whether the AO could 'suo motu' have extended the date for submission of the audit report under Section 142(2C) of the Act. Since the said question was incidental to the main question urged regarding the assessment being barred by limitation, it has to be necessarily examined not only by the CIT(A) but consequently by the ITAT as well. 5. The observations of the Supreme Court in National Thermal Power (supra) suggests that the powers of the ITAT are wide enough to even consider a point which may not have been urged before the CIT (A) as long as the said question requires to be examined in the interest of justice. In that view of the matter, t....