TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 788
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravely erred in upholding assessment made u/s. 153A read with section 143(3) which was otherwise time barred in as much as the very reference u/s. 142(2A) was unwarranted against law and facts on the file. 2. The assessment framed on the basis of audit report u/s. 142(2A) deserves to be quashed in as much as the special auditor has travelled beyond the provisions of section 142(2A) for the purpose of conducting the audit." 3. Referring to the above, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that in all the three appeals a common solitary ground was being pressed relating to the assessment order being time barred, having been passed in the extended time limit on account of reference made for conducting special audit u/s. 142(2A) of the Act, which reference was not in accordance with law. As for the other ground, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that he was not pressing the same before us. 4. With respect to ground being argued, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the issue raised therein stood covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the ITAT in the case of Sunder Mal Satpal Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos. 154....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion from unaccounted transaction to arrive at a definite conclusion and also reconcile the regular books of accounts with these seized books. iv) Reconciliation of the promotes with the regular books of account to bifurcate the accounted for pronotes from the unaccounted ones and to work out the interest income earned on these advances and also to check the source of investment made in these advances, on yearly basis from Asstt. Year 2002-03 to Asstt. Year 2008-09. v) To redraw the balance sheet, P&L a/c from A.Y. 2002-03 to 2008-09 so as to arrive at a true and correct income. vi) To check the loose papers found and reconcile them with the assessee regular books of account. You are again requested to cooperate with M/s. P.C. Goyal & Company, 62-New Lajpat Nagar, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana for the purpose of special audit immediately, so that the necessary audit may be done in time and the special audit report is submitted to the undersigned by 31/03/2010. Sd/- Yours faithfully, (Dr. D.S. SIDHU) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-III, Ludhiana 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t had categorically held that the ITAT ought to have entertained the additional grounds pertaining to the validity of reference made u/s. 142(2A) of the Act. 4. The Ld. DR, after going through the aforesaid order, fairly agreed that the issue had been considered as above by the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid decision. 5. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue since the adjudication of the reference to special audit by the ITAT has been held to be well within its jurisdiction by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Consulting Engineering Services Private Limited Vs. ITAT & Another (supra), that too after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sahara India(supra). Therefore, with regard to the same, there is no mistake in the order of the ITAT." 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, therefore, stated that the issue in the impugned cases stood squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the ITAT in the case of M/s. Sunder Mal Satpal (supra). 7. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently contested the stand of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... We do not find any merit in the same. As noted above this contention of the Revenue raised by way of a Miscellaneous application in the case of Sunder Mal Satpal (supra) already stands dismissed by the ITAT. All the same, addressing the specific reference by the Ld. DR to the decision of the apex court in the case of Rajesh Kumar (supra), we find that, taking note of the said decision this argument of the Revenue has been dismissed by the ITAT in various decisions. It has been held that though order directing special audit is otherwise not appealable but while challenging the assessment order as being barred by limitation, the validity of the order directing special audit u/s. 142(2A) can be challenged, albeit for this limited purpose alone. It has been held that for coming to a conclusion that the assessment order is barred by limitation, all aspects integral to the process and ultimate completion of assessment can be challenged and considered for deciding the same. The relevant decisions are: Unitech Limited Vs ACIT in ITA No. 5180/Del/2013 dated 08.04.2016: "Furthermore, the judgments relied upon by the revenue also do not lead us to take different view of th....