Trident Microfin Private Limited v. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Amritsar And Another
High Court
22 Sep 2014 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Trident Microfin Private Limited v. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Amritsar And Another
Date of order
22 Sep 2014
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Trident Microfin Private Limited v. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Amritsar And Another, the High Court (2014) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
CWP No. 19663 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 19663 of 2014Decided on : 22.09.2014
Trident Microfin Private Limited
Versus
Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Amritsar and another
. . . Petitioner
. . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. Ashu M. Punchhi, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for quashing the order dated 25.03.2014 (Annexure P-12), passed by respondent No.1 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, being in complete violation of the mandate as provided under proviso to Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the Act') for granting approval to conduct special audit of the assessee. Further, the order dated 15.09.2014 (Annexure P-21), whereby, the application for transfer of the proceedings from Amritsar to Hyderabad had been rejected, has also been challenged.2.Learned counsel for the petitioner candidly admitted that the last date for framing the assessment after excluding the time spent in getting the special audit of the account under Section 142(2A) of the Act would expire on 17[th] October, 2014. In such a situation, we do not find any justification to interfere in the order dated 15.09.2014 (Annexure P-21), whereby, the application for transfer of the assessment proceedings from
CWP No. 19663 of 2014
Amritsar to Hyderabad has been rejected. Equally, the order passed under Section 142(2A) of the Act on 25.03.2014 (Annexure P-12) cannot be permitted to be challenged at this stage after expiry of six months, more so, when the limitation for framing assessment is expiring on 17.10.2014.3.In view of the above, we do not finding justification to interfere at this stage in the writ jurisdiction.
4.Dismissed.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE
September 22, 2014J.Ram
(FATEH DEEP SINGH) JUDGE
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.