Case LawHigh Court › Punjab Urban Development Authority (Puda...

Punjab Urban Development Authority (Puda v. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I & Another

High Court 05 Feb 2010 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Punjab Urban Development Authority (Puda v. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I & Another
Date of order
05 Feb 2010
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Punjab Urban Development Authority (Puda v. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I & Another, the High Court (2010) decided the matter.

Decision: The petition is disposed of.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.4204 of 2003 (O&M)Date of decision: 5.2.2010 Punjab Urban Development Authority (PUDA). -----Petitioner. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-I & another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:-Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.for the petitioner. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Standing Counsel for the revenue. --- ORDER: 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated8.10.2002, Annexure P-3, whereby special audit of accounts ofthe petitioner/assessee has been ordered under Section 142(2A)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”). 2. The assessee is a statutory body and filed its return claiming exemption under Section 10(20A) of the Act. TheAssessing Officer passed the impugned order on the ground thataccounts being complex, special audit was required. 3. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that nohearing was given to it before the impugned order was passed which was necessary. Condition precedent for passing orderunder Section 142(2A) of the Act does not exist inasmuch as theaccounts are not complex. Opinion of the Assessing officer is notbased on objective data as required. Other requirements forexercise of the power have not been complied with. Reliance hasbeen placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inSahara India (Firm)v. Commissioner of Income Tax andanother[2008] 300 ITR 403. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states thatsince judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been deliveredafter filing of this petition, the revenue has no objection to a freshorder being passed in accordance with law. 5. In view of above statement, this petition is disposedof. A fresh order may be passed in accordance with law, ifwarranted, within three months from the date of receipt of a copyof this order. 6. The petition is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE February 05, 2010ashwani ( ALOK SINGH ) JUDGE
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan