Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar, Urban Improvement Trustbuilding, Bhagat Singh Circle, Alwar (Rajasthan) Through Itsauthorised Signatory, Phailee Ram Meena v. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax/Income Taxofficer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhiofficer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9558/2022 Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar, Urban Improvement TrustBuilding, Bhagat Singh Circle, Alwar (Rajasthan) Through ItsAuthorised Signatory, Phailee Ram Meena, S/o MoolchandMeena, Aged Bout 34 Years, R/o 2, Scheme No. 3 Vasant ViharAlwar 301001 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax/income TaxOfficer, National E-Assessment Centre, DelhiOfficer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi 2. Circle (Exemp.), Jaipur, Kailash Height, Lal Kothi, TonkRoad, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302015.Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302015. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakul Khurrana, AdvocateFor Respondent(s): Mr. Anuroop Singhi, Advocate with Mr. N.S. Bhati, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA 11/07/2022 Order Heard. This petition is directed against the order dated 23.03.2022which according to the petitioner does not constitute an order butonly an intimation as also subsequent communication dated24.05.2022 rejecting objection against special audit of accounts ofthe petitioner under Section 142 (2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for brevity “the Act of 1961”). Relying upon the judgment in thecase of Rajesh Kumar and Ors. Vs. D. Commissioner ofIncome Tax and Ors. reported in (2007)2SCC181 andKarnataka Industrial Area Development Board Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Circle-1reported in (2018)401 ITR 74 (Karnataka), the argument oflearned counsel for the petitioner is that firstly a properopportunity of hearing was not given and secondly, thecommunication dated 23.03.2022 does not reflect any opinion byapplication of mind and recording reasons before issuance ofdirection for audit of accounts. According to the learned counselfor the petitioner, even though in response to earlier notices, thepetitioner for some reasons, could not submit his reply, lawrequired the authority to form an opinion before passing orderdated 23.03.2022. Shri Singhi, learned advocate who appears on behalf ofrespondents, would bring to the notice of the Court, a detailedorder passed by the Authority when subsequently an objectionwas submitted on 01.04.2022. What we find from the records of the case is that the noticewas initially issued to the petitioner on 28.01.2022 whichmentioned specific material relied upon by the authority whileproposing to appoint an Auditor under Section 142 (2A) of the Actof 1961, which is stated below:- “The income and expenditure account wassigned by the ‘Lekhadhikari’ (Accounts Officer) of theUIT. For the year under consideration, gross receiptsof the UIT is exceeded the prescribed limit to get itsaccounts audited but you have not furnished auditreport in Form No. 10B as per required Section12A(1)(b) of the Act and audited balance sheet.Thus, you have submitted only a part of finalaccounts which are not audited/signed by theChartered Accountant. In view of the discrepanciesobserved above, doubts about the correctness ofaccounts arise.”signed by the ‘Lekhadhikari’ (Accounts Officer) of theUIT. For the year under consideration, gross receiptsof the UIT is exceeded the prescribed limit to get itsaccounts audited but you have not furnished auditreport in Form No. 10B as per required Section12A(1)(b) of the Act and audited balance sheet.Thus, you have submitted only a part of finalaccounts which are not audited/signed by theChartered Accountant. In view of the discrepanciesobserved above, doubts about the correctness ofaccounts arise.” It is not in dispute that the reply to the notice was not filed within the period stipulated in the notice. The petitioner did noteven bring to the notice of the authorities that any audit was got It is not in dispute that the reply to the notice was not filed within the period stipulated in the notice. The petitioner did noteven bring to the notice of the authorities that any audit was got done by him. It is further revealed from the report that a letter forextension was submitted on 09.02.2022, by which the petitionersought further time of 15 days. In response thereto, the assesseewas given time till 14.02.2022 to respond to the notice underSection 142 (2A) of the Act of 1961, that intimation required thepetitioner to file his objection as final opportunity. It is not the case of the petitioner that neither the notice wasserved nor the subsequent communication was received but, thepetitioner chose not to file any response. In the absence thereof,finally a proposal was submitted for approval of the PCIT (REFAC)for issuance of appropriate directions to the assessee to get hisaccount audited under Section 142 (2A) of the Act of 1961. It is also clear that when order was passed by the Authorityon 23.03.2022, the petitioner did not challenge that order butkept on making representation. In course of time, a detailedobjection was also submitted on 01.04.2022 without challengingearlier order dated 23.03.2022 before this Court or any otherjudicial forum. The objection also came to be rejected vide subsequentorder dated 24.05.2022. We have gone through the same. The peculiar circumstances of the case are that despiterepeated opportunities, the assesse did not respond to the noticeeven though more than one opportunity was granted to him andsubsequently after passing of order dated 23.03.2022 when hesubmitted a detailed objection that too has been rejected on24.05.2022, which contains detailed reasons why special audit hasbeen directed under Section 142 (2A) of the Act of 1961. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we arenot inclined to interfere with the proceedings particularly when the petitioner has chosen not to challenge the order dated 23.03.2022at the first instance and despite repeated opportunities, no replywas submitted by him and taking into consideration that in anycase, his objection was rejected by detailed order. This writ petition is dismissed accordingly. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J LAKSHYA SHARMA /12