Wp/15091/2018 Of Smt. Kamla Shivhare v. Deputy Commsssioner Of Income Tax Central Bhopal

-: 3:- W.P. No.15079/18, W.P. No.15084/18 & W.P. No.15091/18 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPURBENCH INDORE(Division Bench) ( Hon'ble Shri Justice P.K.Jaiswal andHon'ble Shri Justice Vivek Rusia) W.P. No.15079/2018 (M/s. Hyaline Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Dy. Commissioner ofIncome Tax Central, Bhopal) W.P. No.15084/2018 (Smt. Anjana Shivhare W/o Haribabu Shivhare V/s. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central, Bhopal) W.P. No.15091/2018 (Smt. Kamla Shivhare W/o Laxminarayan Shivhare V/s. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central, Bhopal) Indore, Dt.07.09.2018 Shri Sumeet Neema, learned Senior Counsel with ShriAyush Gupta, counsel for the petitioners. Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned Counsel for the respondents.Heard. The issue involved in these Writ Petitions is squarelycovered by the order dated 06.09.2018 passed in W.P.No.7999/2018 (Ramswaroop Shivhare V/s. Dy. Commissioner ofIncome Tax Central Bhopal & others). Para 14 to 19 of the order dated 06.09.2018 passed inW.P. No.7999/2018 reads as under :- 14.As per Section 142(2A) of the Act the onlyrequirement is that if in the opinion of the Assessing Officer the case is required to beaudited by Special Auditor than the AssessingOfficer must convey the opinion to the PrincipleCommissioner of Income Tax and after theapproval is granted by the Principle Commissionerof Income Tax then Assessing Officer may issuethe direction for Special Audit. The direction forSpecial Audit is subjected to approval of PrincipleCommissioner of Income-tax hence it is thePrinciple Commissioner of Income-tax who has toapply the mind before granting the approval forSpecial Audit on the proposal of Assessing Officer,therefore, the authority taking the substantivedecision for Special Audit is Principle Commissionerof Income-tax. Hence, the Principle Commissionerof Income-tax is required to grant an opportunityto assessee or on the basis of opportunity grantedby the assessing officer and based on the materialavailable on record, the Principle Commissioner ofIncome-tax has to approve the proposal of theAssessing Officer if the Principle Commissionerdeems it fit. 15.The requirement of pre-decisional heairngwas met as Principle Commissioner of Income-tax(Central), Bhopal, before deciding the issue ofapproval for Special Audit gave the opportunity tothe petitioner. 16.The petitioner has not made any objectionregarding procedure followed by the AssessingOfficer or by the Principal Commissioner of IncomeTax (Central), Bhopal, in the entire process ofSpecial Audit till the completion of Special Auditand only after the fact that the accounts havebeen verified by the Special Auditor, the presentwrit petitions have been filed on 04.04.2018. On13.08.2018, it was pointed out that no assessmentorder was passed and the period for assessment isgoing to expire today, ie., 13.08.2018, we issuednotice to the Revenue and directed that theassessment proceedings may go on, but no finalorder shall be passed without the leave of thisCourt. 17.On the next date of hearing, learned counselfor the Revenue has submitted that theassessment order has been passed on 13.08.2018and the petitioner is having statutory remedy ofappeal before the Commissioner of Income-taxand submitted that the writ petitions are renderedinfructuous. 18.Considering the law laid down by the Apex -: 3:- W.P. No.15079/18, W.P. No.15084/18 & W.P. No.15091/18 17.On the next date of hearing, learned counselfor the Revenue has submitted that theassessment order has been passed on 13.08.2018and the petitioner is having statutory remedy ofappeal before the Commissioner of Income-taxand submitted that the writ petitions are renderedinfructuous. 18.Considering the law laid down by the Apex -: 3:- W.P. No.15079/18, W.P. No.15084/18 & W.P. No.15091/18 Court in the case of Sahara India (Firm)V/s.-–Commissioner of Incometax, Central I(supra), so also the fact that PrincipalCommissioner of Income-tax granted twoopportunities to the petitioner vide show causenotice dated 30.11.2017 and letter dated11.12.2017, we are of the view that sufficientcompliance of the proviso to Section 142(2A) hasbeen made. We are also unable to persuadeourselves to agree with the proposition canvassedby the learned Senior counsel for the assessee. 19.In the result, the writ petitions filed by thepetitioner have no merit and are, accordingly,dismissed. The order dated 06.09.2018 passed in W.P.No.7999/2018 shall apply mutatis mutandis in these WritPetitions also, therefore, for the reasons assigned in the W.P.No.7999/2018, we dismiss these Writ Petitions on the sameterms and conditions as mentioned in W.P. No.7999/2018. (P.K.Jaiswal) (Vivek Rusia) Judge Judge ns. Digitally signed by Neeraj Sarvate Date: 2018.09.17 11:34:01 +05'30'