A Will That Silences Legal Heirs Without Cause Cannot Speak the Truth of the Testator’s Intent: Orissa High Court Rejects Solemnity of Registered Will Conviction Can Be Set Aside Even in Non-Compoundable Offences If Parties Settle: Punjab & Haryana High Court Affirms Inherent Power under Section 482 CrPC Mere Absence of Ticket or Station Report Not Fatal to Claim: Bombay High Court Says Railway Claims Can Be Proved by Circumstantial Evidence Judgment of Acquittal Cannot Be Reversed Merely Because A Different View Is Possible, Unless It’s Perverse Or Ignores Material Evidence: Himachal High Court Courts Cannot Reopen Admissions Once Deadline Expires: Orissa High Court Rejects SEBC Nursing Aspirants' Plea Filed Post Cut-Off A Sketchy Allegation of Corrupt Practice Can’t Be Cured Later Through Amendment: Bombay High Court Rejects Election Petition Against Shiv Sena MLA Delay in FIR, If Plausibly Explained, Cannot Vitiate Claim: Madras High Court Enhances Compensation to ₹3.26 Crores for Fatal Accident Involving Pillion Rider Failure to Videograph Search Violates BNSS: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail, Slams Police for Ignoring Procedural Mandates No Customs Duty Without Clear Authority Of Law: Supreme Court Quashes Levy On SEZ Electricity Supplied To Domestic Tariff Area Owner's Admission Cannot Be Brushed Aside to Deny Compensation: Supreme Court Reinstates ₹3.7 Lakh Award to Family of Deceased Driver Benefit Of Doubt Must Prevail Where Eyewitness Testimony Is Infirm And Contradict Medical Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Double-Murder Convict A Mere Error in Bail Orders Cannot Tarnish a Judge’s Career: Supreme Court Quashes Dismissal of Judicial Officer for Granting Bail under Excise Act Order 1 Rule 10 CPC | A Necessary Party is One Without Whom No Order Can Be Made Effectively: Supreme Court Readiness and Willingness Must Be Proven—Mere Pleading Is Not Enough For Specific Performance: Supreme Court Returning Expired Stamp Papers Is No Refund in Law: Supreme Court Directs State to Pay ₹3.99 Lakhs Despite Limitation under UP Stamp Rules Supreme Court Distinguishes ‘Masterminds’ from ‘Facilitators’: Bail Denied to Umar Khalid & Sharjeel Imam, Granted to Gulfisha Fatima & Others: Supreme Court Jurisdiction of Small Causes Court Under Section 41 Does Not Extinguish Arbitration Clause in Leave and License Agreements: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Unilateral Appointment Void Ab Initio; Participation in Proceedings Does Not Constitute Waiver: Supreme Court Section 21 Arbitration Act Is Not a Gatekeeper of Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ₹2 Crore Arbitral Award Against Kerala Government

Delhi High Court Clarifies Authority on Extension of Time for Audit Reports under Income Tax Act

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment delivered on December 11, 2023, the Delhi High Court clarified the authority responsible for extending the time for audit reports under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ruling addresses a crucial question regarding the powers of the Assessing Officer and the role of the Commissioner of Income Tax in this context.

The court's decision rested on a meticulous analysis of the provisions contained in the Income Tax Act, particularly Sections 142(2C) and 142(2A). The judgment emphasized that the power to extend the timeframe solely resides with the Assessing Officer and cannot be delegated to the Commissioner of Income Tax.

Quoting from the court's observations, the judgment stated, "As long as the authority retains the power to exercise the discretion vested in it by the statute, no fault can be found if it employs ministerial means in effectuating the exercise of discretionary power by the authority in which such power is reposed." This reaffirmed the principle that the Assessing Officer has the statutory discretion to extend the time for audit reports.

The court further elaborated that the appointment of a special auditor and the decision to get an audit conducted are steps in the process of assessment proceedings, and therefore, not administrative powers. The judgment cited precedents, including Rajesh Kumar's case and Sahara India Firm case, to support this legal standpoint.

Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the respondent/assessee, stating that the extension of time under Section 142(2C) of the Income Tax Act could only be exercised by the Assessing Officer. The judgment thus provided clarity on a critical matter affecting tax assessments.

Date of Decision: 11 December 2023

P.R. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX  CENTRAL-02  vs B.L. KASHYAP AND SONS LTD. 

 

Latest Legal News