By K. B. BHUJLE
Advocate
Principal CIT vs. Nilkanth Concast P.
Ltd.; 387 ITR 568 (Del):
The relevant year is the A. Y. 2005-06. In
the appeal filed by the Revenue before the Delhi High Court, the following
questions were raised:
“i) Whether the ITAT is
competent to adjudicate the order of the AO under proviso to section
142(2C), which is not provided u/s. 146A
or 153?
ii) Whether the ITAT is
competent to admit an issue for the first time where there is no material in
the assessment order or in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals) on the basis of quite the issue of validity of the order of the
Assessing Officer under the proviso to section 142(2C) could be raised
and considered?”
iii) Whether the AO is
competent to extend the period of filing the audit report on the express
request of the nominated auditor under proviso to section 142(2C) r.w.s.
142(2A) ?”
The High Court held as under:
“i) The powers of the Tribunal
are wide enough to consider a point which may not have been urged before the
Commissioner(Appeals) as long as the question requires to be examined in the
interest
of justice.
ii) The Tribunal had not
exceeded its jurisdiction in examining the question whether the Assessing
Officer was justified in extending the time for the auditor nominated u/s.
142(2C), to submit the audit report.
iii) Under proviso to
section 142(2C) of the Act, there was no power with the Assessing Officer to suo
moto extend the time for filing audit report prior to April 1, 2008. The
power was subsequently provided by amending the proviso by the Finance
Act, 2008 and the amendment was prospective in nature.
iv) The Assessing Officer was
not competent to extend the period for filing the audit report on the request
of the nominated auditor. It could be done only on the request made on behalf
of the assessee.”
