Case LawHigh Court › Trident Microfin Private Limited v. Comm...

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
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 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