ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., Delhi

ITA 5544/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5829 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 11 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROHIT JAIN ADV MS MEENAL GOEL
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY GOYAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Search and seizure; Period of limitation; Difference of opinion; Competent authority; Time period of passing order; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 153A; 234B; 251; 143(2); 264; 139(1); 142(2A); 13; 119; 147; 263; 132

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A, NEW DELHI , ' # $ , & ' BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, VP & SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] ( / ITA NOS.4897 TO 4903/DEL/2014 ) / ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09 M/S. B. L. KASHYAP & SONS LTD. B-1, /A-21, MICE, MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI .......... ... /APPELLANT PAN-AAACB0205F VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, ROOM NO.353, E-2, ARA CENTRE, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. NEW DELHI-110055 . / RESPONDENT ( / ITA NOS.5540 TO 5546/DEL/2014 ) / ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09 ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, ROOM NO.353, E-2, ARA CENTRE, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. NEW DELHI-110055 ........... /APPELLANT VS M/S. B. L. KASHYAP & SONS LTD. B-1, /A-21, MICE, MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI PAN-AAACB0205F . / RESPONDENT ITA NOS. 4897 TO 4903/DEL/2014 ITA NOS. 5540 TO 5546/DEL/2014 2 / APPELLANT BY: SH. ROHIT JAIN, ADV. MS. MEENAL GOEL, ADV. / RESPONDENT BY: SH. SANJAY GOYAL, CIT-DR ) / DATE OF HEARING : 10.09.2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: .09.2020 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, VP THIS BUNCH OF CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A S WELL AS REVENUE ARE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A)-III, NEW DELHI, R ELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY AGAINST THE ORDER P ASSED UNDER SECTION 153A/143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THIS BUNCH OF CROSS APPEALS RELATING TO ASSESSME NT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09 WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET, POIN TED OUT THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT BUNCH OF APPEALS NEEDED TO BE ADJUDICATED FIRST. HE STRESSED THAT THE ISSUE STAND S COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SISTER CONCERN I.E. M/S. SO UL SPACE PROJECTS LTD. IN ITA NOS.193 AND 1849/DEL/2015 ALONG WITH C.O. NOS.271 & 274/DEL/2015, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008-09. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS OF APPEA L, BUT THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE IS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE GROUND OF APPE AL NOS. 1 TO 3, WHICH READ AS UNDER:- ITA NOS. 4897 TO 4903/DEL/2014 ITA NOS. 5540 TO 5546/DEL/2014 3 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 10.08.2010 PASSED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 153A AS BARRED BY LIMITATION SINCE THE SAME HAD BEEN PASSED BEYOND TIME LIMIT SPECIFIED UNDER SECTI ON 153B(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) INASMUCH AS: A) THE AUDIT CONDUCTED BY THE SPECIAL AUDITOR UNDER SE CTION 142(2A) OF THE ACT WAS NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER DID NOT POINT OUT ANY COMPLEXITY IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT BEFORE ISSUING ANY SUCH DIRECTIONS ; AND B) IN ANY CASE, THE EXTENDED TIME PERIOD ALLOWED TO TH E SPECIAL AUDITOR FOR FURNISHING AUDIT REPORT COULD NOT BE EX CLUDED IN TERMS OF CLAUSE (II) OF EXPLANATION UNDER SECTION 1 53B SINCE SUCH EXTENSION HAVING BEEN GRANTED BY THE CIT, INST EAD OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 142(2C) OF THE ACT WAS INVALID IN LAW. 2. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES/ ADDITI ONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (SEPARATELY CHALLENGED INFRA) WER E BEYOND JURISDICTION AND SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE A CT SINCE THE SAME WERE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIALS/DOCUM ENTS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BAD I N LAW AND VOID-AB- INTIO INASMUCH AS THE REQUISITE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS SERVED ON THE APPELLANT AFTER THE PRESCRIBE D TIME PERIOD. 5. IN ORDER TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE P RESENT BUNCH OF APPEALS, WE REFER TO THE FACTS IN ITA NO.4897/DEL/2014, RELA TING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 6. BRIEFLY IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE H AD FURNISHED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 03.10.2002. SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER GROUP OF COMPANIES WAS CONDUCTED ON 19.02.2008. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE UND ER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT ON 24.12.2008. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE ASSESSEE FI LED RETURN OF INCOME ON 20.02.2009. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN UP F OR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE ITA NOS. 4897 TO 4903/DEL/2014 ITA NOS. 5540 TO 5546/DEL/2014 4 UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 30.09 .2009. SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE WERE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 27.11.20 09 REQUISITIONING THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY SPECIAL AUDIT UNDER SECTION 142( 2A) OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09. T HE ASSESSEE FILED ITS OBJECTION TO THE SAME BY LETTER DATED 04.12.2009. T HE SAID OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTER DATED 08.12.2009. ON 09.12.2009, SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE WAS IS SUED BY THE COMMISSIONER PRIOR TO GRANT OF APPROVAL UNDER SECTI ON 142(2A) OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE F ILED REPLY TO THE SAME AND THE COMMISSIONER VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 15.12.200 9 APPROVED SPECIAL AUDIT FOR THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER SECTION 14 2(2A) OF THE ACT, TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF 120 DAYS. DIRECTIONS FOR SPECIAL AUDIT THEREAFTER WERE ISSUED BY THE AO FOR THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEARS VIDE LETTER DATED 15.12.2009. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT I.E. SE CTION 153B OF THE ACT, THE LIMITATION WAS 21 MONTHS WHICH EXPIRED ON 31.12.200 9. ON 25.03.2010, REQUEST WAS MADE BY THE SPECIAL AUDITOR FOR EXTENSI ON OF TIME TO COMPLETE THE SPECIAL AUDIT UNDER SECTION 142(2A) OF THE ACT ON T HE GROUND OF NON- COOPERATION BY THE ASSESSEE. ON 13.04.2010, LETTER WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER INTIMATING COMMUNICATION THAT EXTENSION OF 60 DAYS HAS BEEN GRANTED BY THE COMMISSIONER VIDE LETTER DATED 12.04.2010, R ECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER. THE SAID LETTER ISSUED BY THE COMMISS IONER GRANTED APPROVAL FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE B EFORE US AND IN THE CASE OF THE ITA NOS. 4897 TO 4903/DEL/2014 ITA NOS. 5540 TO 5546/DEL/2014 5 GROUP CONCERN I.E M/S SOUL SPACE PROJECTS LTD. THER EAFTER, SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT WAS RECEIVED AND ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 13. 06.2010. 7. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE EXTENSION OF 60 DAYS FOR COMPLETING THE SPECIAL AUDIT UNDER SECTION 142(2A) OF THE ACT. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE SAID EXTENSION HAD TO BE GRANTED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE SAME HAD BEEN GRANTED BY THE COMM ISSIONER VIDE LETTER DATED 12.04.2010 AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ONLY COMMU NICATED THE SAME VIDE LETTER DATED 13.04.2010. THE CASE OF THE REVENUE O N THE OTHER HAND IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD APPLIED HIS MIND FOR THE SAID GRANT OF EXTENSION OF TIME FOR COMPLETING THE SPECIAL AUDIT AND THE NECESSARY EXERCISE IN THIS REGARD WAS COMPLETED BY HIM. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE AFTER TAKING US THROUGH THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS POINTED OUT THAT VIDE LETTER DAT ED 12.04.2020, EXTENSION OF 60 DAYS WAS GRANTED BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR COMPLET ING THE SPECIAL AUDIT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AND M/S SOUL SPACE PROJECTS LT D. VIDE COMMON LETTER. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT COMMO N SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND M/S SOUL SPACE PR OJECTS LTD. AND EVEN SAME PUNCHNAMA REFERS TO BOTH THE ENTITIES. OUR ATTENTIO N WAS DRAWN TO PAGES 42 TO 49 OF THE PAPER BOOK IN THIS REGARD. HE THEN DREW O UR ATTENTION TO PAGES 83 & 84 OF THE PAPER BOOK I.E COMMUNICATION FOR EXTENSIO N OF 60 DAYS FOR CONDUCTING THE SPECIAL AUDIT. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE STRE SSED THAT THE SAME ASSESSING OFFICER AND SAME COMMISSIONER HAD CONDUCTED THE PRO CEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF TH E TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S ITA NOS. 4897 TO 4903/DEL/2014 ITA NOS. 5540 TO 5546/DEL/2014 6 SOUL SPACE PROJECTS LTD. (SUPRA) AND STRESSED THAT THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE FAIRLY STATED THAT TH E FACTS OF THE CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE M/S SOUL SPACE PROJEC TS LTD. HOWEVER, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION. HE FURTHER REFE RRED TO PARAS 8 TO 11 OF HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH READ AS UNDER:- 8. WHILE ARGUING IN SOUL SPACE PROJECTS LTD., LD. A R RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISION IN SUPPORT OF THE ARGUMENT T HAT APPROVAL FROM HIGHER INCOMPETENT AUTHORITY IS IMPRO PER:- 1. CIT V. SPLS SIDDHARTHA LTD. : 345 ITR 223 (DEL .) 2. GHANSHYAM K. KHABRANI V. ACIT : 346 ITR 443 (BO M.) 3. CIT V. SOYUZ INSDUSTRIAL RESOURCES LTD. : [2015 ] 232 TAXMAN 414 (DEL. HC) 4. YUM RESTAURANTS ASIA PTE LTD. V. DDIT : 397 ITR 639 (DEL.) MY SUBMISSION ON THE ABOVE IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE DECISIONS ARE ON THE SUBJECT OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147 AND THE AUTHORITY WHO SHOULD BE SATISFIED FOR ON THE R EASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THESE DECISIONS ARE IN RESPECT OF SATISFACTION FOR INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. NONE OF THE DECISION IS RELATED FOR EXTENSION OF TIME PERIOD OF AUDI T OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, WHERE THE INITIATIVES OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT CHALLENGED. THEREFORE, THES E CASES ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN ALL THESE CASES, THE JURISDICTION WAS CHA LLENGED ON THE BASIS OF EITHER INITIATION OF ASSESSMENT OR SEARCH AUTHORIZATION OR LEVEL OF INTEREST WHICH IS DISTING UISHABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WHICH IS ONLY EXTENS ION OF TIME PERIOD FOR AUDIT U/S 142(2A). ITA NOS. 4897 TO 4903/DEL/2014 ITA NOS. 5540 TO 5546/DEL/2014 7 9. WHILE ARGUING IN SOUL SPACE PROJECTS LTD., LD. AR RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS ON THE ARGUMENT T HAT POWER VESTED IN AN AUTHORITY BY STATUTE TO BE EXERCISED S TRICTLY BY SUCH AUTHORITY. 1. CIT V. ANJUM M.H. GHASWALA: 252ITR 1 (SC) 2. CIT V. ELELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD.: 256 ITR 1 (DEL . HC) (FB) 3. DR. NALINI MAHAJAN V. DIT: 252 ITR 123 (DEL. HC) MY SUBMISSION ON THE ABOVE IN THIS REGARD, FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS MAY BE CONSID ERED SHOWING THAT ALL THESE CASE LAWS ARE DISTINGUISHABL E ON FACTS. A) ANJUMAN M.H. GHASWALA:- THIS CASE RELATED TO POWER OF SETTLEMENT COMMISSION VS. CBDT FOR WAIVER OF IN TEREST U/S 234A, 234B & 234C OF IT ACT. B) KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD:- ISSUE OF CHANGE OF OPINION FOR THE REASON TO BELIEVE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. C) DR. NALINI MAHAJAN:- THESE ISSUE WAS EXER CISING POWER TO ISSUE AUTHORIZATION U/S 132 BY ADDITIONA L DIRECTION. IN ALL THESE CASES, THE JURISDICTION WAS CHA LLENGED ON THE BASIS OF EITHER INITIATION OF ASSESSMENT OR SEARCH AUTHORIZATION OR LEVEL OF INTEREST WHICH IS DISTING UISHABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WHICH IS ONLY EXTENS ION OF TIME PERIOD FOR AUDIT U/S 142(2A). 10. LD. AR ARGUED THAT EXERCISE OF STATUTORY P OWER OF AN AUTHORITY AT THE DISCRETION OF ANOTHER AUTHORITY VITIATES THE PROCEEDINGS. 1. THE PURTABPORE CO. LTD. V. CANE COMMISSION ER OF BIHAR AND OTHERS: 1969(1) 2. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BOMBAY V. GORDHANDA S BHANJI: AIR 1952 SC 16 3. ANIRUDHSINJI KARANSINHJI JADEJA AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF GUJARAT: (1995)5 SCC 302 4. STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS V. MAHARAJA DHARAM ANDER PRASAD SINGH & OTHERS: (1989)2 SCC 505 ITA NOS. 4897 TO 4903/DEL/2014 ITA NOS. 5540 TO 5546/DEL/2014 8 MY SUBMISSION ON THE ABOVE IN THIS REGARD, FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS MAY BE CONSID ERED SHOWING THAT ALL THESE CASE LAWS ARE DISTINGUISHABL E ON FACTS. A) THE PURTABPORE CO. LTD. (CITED SUPRA) -- THE IS SUE WAS FOR QUASI JUDICIAL POWER OF COMMISSION V. CHIEF MINISTE R. THE FACTS IN PRESENT CASE ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. B) GORDHANDAS BHAUII (CITED SUPRA) -- THE ISSUE WAS THE POWER OF COMMISSION VIS-A VIS THE INTERFERENC E OF THE GOVERNMENT. THESE FACTS ARE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHED I N THE PRESENT CASE. C) ANIRUDH SINHJI JADEJA (CITED SUPRA) -- THE IS SUE WAS THE POWER OF DSP FOR PRIOR APPROVAL FOR REC ORDING INFORMATION ABOUT COMMISSION OF OFFENCE U/S T ERRORIST & DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1987. THE F ACTS ARE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE. D) MAHARAJA DHARAMANDER PRASAD SINGH & OTHERS. -- THE ISSUE WAS RELATED TO PERMISSION FOR DEVELOPME NT OF LAND BY PRIVATE PART UNDER U.P. URBAN PLANNING DEV ELOPMENT ACT, 1973. THESE FACTS ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN TH E PRESENT CASE. 11. OVERALL SUMMARY OF MY SUBMISSIONS: (I) BASED UPON THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS MADE ABOVE, IT MAY KINDLY BE SEEN THAT THE STATUTE PROVIDED THE ONLY CONDITION TO BE SATISFIED FOR EXTENDING THE TIME, IS THE SATISFACTION THE ASSESSING OFFICER . (II) THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PRESENT CASE HA S APPLIED HIS MIND AND FOUND THE CASE SUITABLE FOR EXTENSION AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE LETTER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 11.02.2020. THEREFORE, CONDITIONS FOR EXTENDING THE TIME PERIOD UNDER THE ABOVE PROVISO IS MET EXPECT THE GR ANT OF EXTENSION BY CIT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REASON ON ACCOUNT OF SPECIAL AUDIT PENDING IN OTHER GROUP CASES. (III) THEREFORE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE ON SUBS TANTIAL BASIS THE REQUIREMENT OF PROVISO HAS BEEN MET, JUST ON A CCOUNT OF ITA NOS. 4897 TO 4903/DEL/2014 ITA NOS. 5540 TO 5546/DEL/2014 9 ONLY ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF CIT FOR SECTIONING THE EXTENSION SHOULD NOT VITIATE THE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SPECIAL AUDIT. (IV) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE SUBMISSION IT MAY B E MENTIONED THAT CIT IS THE APPROVING AUTHORITY FOR SPECIAL AUDIT U/S 142(2A) AND THEREFORE HIS INVOLVEMEN T FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AS PER PROVISO IS INHERENT. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND PERUSED T HE RECORDS. THE ISSUE WHICH IS RAISED IN THE PRESENT BUNCH OF APPEALS REL ATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09, WHERE THE CROSS APPEALS ARE FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE, IS AGAINST THE GRANT OF EXTENSION FOR FURT HER PERIOD FOR CONDUCT OF SPECIAL AUDIT UNDER SECTION 142(2A) OF THE ACT BY T HE COMMISSIONER AND WHETHER THE SAME IS LEGALLY VALID OR NOT. THE SEQUE NCE OF THE EVENTS IS TABULATED HERE UNDER:- DATE PARTICULARS 03.10.2002 RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 2-03 FILED UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. 19.02.2008 SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION UNDER SECT ION 132 OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AND OTHER GROUP COMPANIES. 24.12.2008 NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT IS SUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 20.02.2009 ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME PURSUAN T TO AFORESAID NOTICE 30.09.2009 NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER 07.10.2009 NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE (BARRED BY LIMITATION) 27.11.2009 SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER REQUIRING EXPLANATION WHY SPECIAL AUDIT UNDER SECTION 142(2A) OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09 04.12.2009 OBJECTIONS/REPLY TO AFORESAID SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER 08.12.2009 LETTER BY ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTING TH E OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002- 03 TO 2008-09 09.12.2009 SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY CIT PRIOR TO GRANT OF ITA NOS. 4897 TO 4903/DEL/2014 ITA NOS. 5540 TO 5546/DEL/2014 10 APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 142(2A) OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008- 09 14.12.2009 REPLY TO AFORESAID SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT 15.12.2009 CIT APPROVED SPECIAL AUDIT FOR ASSESSMEN T YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008- 09 UNDER SECTION 142(2A) OF THE ACT TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN A PERIOD OF 120 DAYS 15.12.2009 DIRECTION FOR SPECIAL AUDIT BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09 TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN 120 DAYS. 31.12.2009 NORMAL LIMITATION PERIOD OF 21 MONTHS UN DER SECTION 153B OF THE ACT FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT 25.03.2010 REQUEST BY SPECIAL AUDITOR FOR EXTENSION OF TIME ON THE GROUND OF ALLEGED LACK OF COOPERATION BY THE ASSESSEE 13.04.2010 LETTER ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER I NTIMATING/ COMMUNICATING THAT EXTENSION OF 60 DAYS HAS GRANTED BY CIT VIDE LETTER DATED 12.04.2010 RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CIT. MOST IMPORTANTLY, LETTER DATED 12.04.2010 [PAGE 84] CLEARLY STATES THAT APPROVAL FOR EXTENSION HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND GRANTED BY THE CIT IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: 1. B.L. KASHYAP & SONS (APPELLANT) 2. SOUL SPACE PROJECTS LTD. (GROUP COMPANY) PERTINENTLY, EXTENSION GRANTED BY THE CIT INSTEAD OF ASSESSING OFFICER (APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY) INVA LID IN TERMS OF PROVISO TO SECTION 142(2C) OF THE ACT. FACT THAT EXTENSION WAS GRANTED BY THE CIT IS PATENTLY CLEAR FROM LETTER DATED 12.04.2020, LETTER DATED 13.04.2020 AND IS 83-84 3 DATE PARTICULARS PAGE NO. (PB) ALSO EXPRESSLY MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 14.04.2010 120TH DAY - THE LAST DAY ON WHICH THE SP ECIAL AUDITOR WAS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE SPECIAL AUDIT. 11.06.2010 SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT FILED BEFORE THE AS SESSING OFFICER 13.06.2010 LIMITATION FOR PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER, AFTER EXCLUDING 120 DAYS GRANTED FOR COMPLETION OF SPECIAL AUDIT (WITHOUT CONSIDERING EXTENSION GRANTED ON 13.04.2010) 10.08.2010 ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 153A/143(3) OF THE ACT ITA NOS. 4897 TO 4903/DEL/2014 ITA NOS. 5540 TO 5546/DEL/2014 11 10. THE ISSUE WHICH ARISES IN THE PRESENT APPEAL BE FORE US IS WHETHER WHERE THE EXTENSION FOR CONDUCT OF SPECIAL AUDIT HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO WAS THE ONLY AUTHORITY TO GRANT THE SA ME IS THE EXTENSION GRANTED BY THE COMMISSIONER IS NULLITY IN THE EYES OF LAW? THE RELEVANT PROVISO BELOW SECTION 142(2C) OF THE ACT READS AS UNDER:- PROVIDED THAT THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER MAY, [SUO MO TU, OR] ON AN APPLICATION MADE IN THIS BEHALF BY THE ASSESSEE AND FOR ANY GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASON, EXTEND THE SAID PERIOD BY SU CH FURTHER PERIOD OR PERIODS AS HE THINKS FIT; SO, HOWEVER, TH AT THE AGGREGATE OF THE PERIOD ORIGINALLY FIXED AND THE PERIOD OR PE RIODS SO EXTENDED SHALL NOT, IN ANY CASE, EXCEED ONE HUNDRED AND EIGH TY DAYS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE DIRECTION UNDER SUB-SECTION ( 2A) IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, 11. SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S SOUL SPACE PROJECTS LTD. (SUPRA) AND AFTER REFERRING TO THE AR GUMENTS OF THE LD. CIT-DR WHICH ARE REPRODUCED IN PARA 11 AT PAGES 10 TO 14 O F THE ORDER, VIDE PARA-12, REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM ASSESSING OFFICER DURING PROCEEDINGS BEFORE TRIBUNAL AND THE ARGUMENTS WITH REGARD TO GRANT OF PERMISSION IN CONNECTION WITH EXTENSION OF THE PERI OD FOR AUDIT WAS REPRODUCED AND IT READS AS UNDER:- 12. THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE REVENUE DURING THE ARGUMENTS WITH REGARD TO THE GRANTING OF PERMISSION IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXTENSION OF THE PERIOD FOR AUDIT IS AS UNDER: OFFICE OF THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, NEW DELHI ROOM NO. 245, ARA CENTRE, E-2, JHANDEWALAN EXTN., NEW DELHI - 110055. F. NO. ACIT/CC-15/2019-20/1605 DA TED: 11.02.2020 TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(DR), G-BENCH, ITAT, 7TH FLOOR, LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI. ITA NOS. 4897 TO 4903/DEL/2014 ITA NOS. 5540 TO 5546/DEL/2014 12 SIR, SUBJECT: SECOND APPEAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS SOUL SPACE PROJECTS LTD., ITA NO.193/DEL/2015 FOR A.Y.2007-08, 1849/DEL/2015 FOR A.Y.2008-09 AND 4352/DEL/2015 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 - MATTER REG. REF: F.NO. CIT/DR/ITAT/G-BENCH/2019-20/195 DATED 27 .01.2020. KINDLY REFER TO THE ABOVE NOTED SUBJECT. 2. ON PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT AND SPECIAL AUDIT RECOR DS IN THE CASE OF SOUL SPACE PROJECTS LTD, IT IS FOUND THAT M/S DINES H MEHTA & CO., SPECIAL AUDITOR APPOINTED IN THE CASE OF SOUL SPACE PROJECTS LTD., HAS FILED AN APPLICATION ON 08.04.2010 RELATED TO EXTEN SION OF TIME FOR FURNISHING THE SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT. ACCORDINGLY, T HE THEN AO HAS FORWARDED A LETTER TO LD. CIT, CENTRAL - II, NEW DE LHI ON 08.04.2010 REGARDING EXTENSION OF SPECIAL AUDIT IN THIS CASE A ND STATED AS UNDER:- '2. M/S DINESH MEHTA & CO. HAS FILED A REQUEST VIDE LETTER DATED 25.03.2010 FOR GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME FOR A FUR THER PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS FOR SUBMISSION OF THE AFORESAID REPORT BECAU SE THERE IS DELAY ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE TO FURNISH DETAILS AND INFORMA TION REQUIRED BY THE AUDITORS AS PER ANNEXURE APPENDED BY THE AUDITORS W ITH THE AFORESAID LETTER (COPY OF LETTER WITH ENCLOSURES IS ENCLOSED FOR READY REFERENCE). 3. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS ALSO INFORMED THAT THE AUDITORS M/S SANJAY SATPAL & ASSOCIATES APPOINTED FOR SPECIAL AUDIT IN THE CASE OF THE FLAGSHIP COMPANY FOR THE GROUP I.E. M/S B .L. KASHY AP & SONS LTD. HAS ALSO REQUESTED FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FURTHER 2 MONTHS FOR THE SIMILAR REASONS. THE APPLICATION FILED BY M/S SANJAY SATPAL & ASSOCIATES HAS ALREADY BEEN FORWARDED TO YOUR GOOD SELF ON 07.04.2 010 FOR FAVOURABLE CONSIDERATION. SINCE, M/S SOUL SPACE PROJECTS LTD. HAS LARGE NUMBERS OF INTERGROUP TRANSACTIONS WITH M/S B. L. KASHYAP & SO NS LTD., IT IS NECESSARY THAT BOTH THE AUDITORS SHOULD WORK IN CLO SE COOPERATION WITH EACH OTHER AND SHOULD EXCHANGE ONE OTHER'S FINDING BEFORE REACHING ANY CONCLUSION. HENCE, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE EXTEN SION OF TIME MAY ALSO BE GRANTED TO M/S DINESH MEHTA & CO. IF EXTENS ION OF TIME IS GRANTED BY YOUR GOOD SELF TO M/S SANJAY SATPAL & AS SOCIATES.' 3. FURTHER, THE LD.CIT, CENTRAL-11, NEW DELHI, VIDE LETTER NO.CIT/(C)- LL/10- 11/24 DATED 12.04.2010 HAS CONVEYED THE EXTE NSION OF 60 DAYS FOR THE PURPOSE OF FURNISHING THE AUDIT REPORT AND DIRECTED NO FURTHER EXTENSION WILL BE ALLOWED AND THE AUDITORS MAY BE A SKED TO ADHERE TO THE EXTENDED TIME LIMIT FOR THE PURPOSE. ACCORDING LY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTER F.NO.DCIT-CC-17/SPECIAL AUDIT/2 010-11/40 DATED 13.04.2010 HAS INFORMED THAT THE EXTENSION OF FURTH ER 60 DAYS GRANTED TO THE SPECIAL AUDITORS M/S DINESH MEHTA & CO., CHA RTERED ACCOUNTANTS, FOR FURNISHING THE AUDIT REPORT U/S 14 2(2A) IN THE CASE AND ALSO REQUESTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO PROVIDE THE REQUI SITE INFORMATION ITA NOS. 4897 TO 4903/DEL/2014 ITA NOS. 5540 TO 5546/DEL/2014 13 IMMEDIATELY UNDER INFORMATION TO THE UNDERSIGNED SO THE SPECIAL AUDIT MAY BE COMPLETED IN A SMOOTH MANNER. 4. ON PERUSAL OF RELEVANT RECORDS, IT IS ASCERTAINE D THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APPLIED HIS MIND IN THE LETTER DATED 08 .04.2010 THEREIN HE HAS GIVEN THE REASONS FOR EXTENSION FOR FURNISH THE SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT. CONSEQUENTLY, THE LD.CIT HAS CONSIDERED THE FACTS ( APPLICATION OF MIND OF AO) AND DIRECTED TO THE AO TO CONVEY THE EXTENSI ON OF 60 DAYS FOR THE PURPOSE OF FURNISHING THE SPECIAL AUDIT U/S 142(2A) . THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE EXTENSION OF PERIOD U/S 142(2C) WAS GRANTE D BY THE AO AFTER APPLYING HIS MIND, NOT BY THE LD. CIT, CENTRAL-LL A ND THE LD. CIT, CENTRAL-LL HAS ONLY DIRECTED TO THE AO TO CONVEY TH E EXTENSION OF PERIOD TO THE SPECIAL AUDITORS. THE ABOVE REFERRED LETTERS ARE ALSO ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR READY REFERENCE. 12. FURTHER, REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE LETTER OF T HE DCIT, DATED 13.04.2010 AND THE SAME WAS REPRODUCED UNDER PARA 13 AND IT R EADS AS UNDER:- 13. THE ORDER OF THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, WHIC H IS AN IMPORTANT DOCUMENT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 142(2C) ARE FOLLOWED OR NOT. F.NO. DCIT-CC-17/SPECIAL AUDIT/2010-11/40 OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -17, ROOM NO. 353, ARA CENTRE, JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, NEW DELHI PHONE NO. 23593441 DATE: 13/04/2010 TO, THE PRINCIPAL OFFICER, M/S SOUL SPACE PROJECTS LTD. A-21/B-1 EXTN., MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL AREA, MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI SUB: IN THE MATTER OF M/S SOUL SPACE PROJECTS LTD. - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 TO 2008-09 - SPECIAL AUDIT UNDER SECTION 14 2(2A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961... REGARDING SIR, PLEASE REFER TO THE ABOVE. IN THIS CONNECTION YOU ARE HEREBY INFORMED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) - II, NEW DELHI VIDE HIS OFFIC E LETTER F.NO. CIT/(C)- 11/10-11/24 DATED 12/04/2010 HAS GRANTED EXTENSION OF 60 DAYS TO ITA NOS. 4897 TO 4903/DEL/2014 ITA NOS. 5540 TO 5546/DEL/2014 14 THE SPECIAL AUDITORS M/S DINESH MEHTA & CO., CHARTE RED ACCOUNTANTS, FOR FURNISHING THE AUDIT REPORT U/S 142(2A) IN YOUR CASE. PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE THE RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER, SD/- YOURS FAITHFULLY, (B.L. SHARMA) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 17, NEW DELHI 13. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL THEREAFTE R WERE AS UNDER:- 14. HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 15. THE CASE LAWS QUOTED BY THE LD. AR AS REBUTTED BY THE LD. DR HAVE BEEN CLOSELY PERUSED WHILE THE LD. DR ARGUED T HAT THE RELEVANCE OF THE CASE LAWS WITH REGARD TO THE SECTIONS FOR WH ICH THE CASE LAWS EMANATED, THE LD. AR STRESSED ON THE RATIO OF THE C ASE LAWS AS TO THE STATUTORY DISCRETION OF THE POWERS OF THE VARIOUS A UTHORITIES. THE LD. DRS CONTENTION WAS THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROV AL OF THE CIT FOR SANCTIONING EXTENSION OF THE PERIOD SHOULD NOT VITI ATE THE CONDUCT OF SPECIAL AUDIT. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE LETTER OF THE CIT, CENTRAL-II SHOULD CONSTRUED ONLY AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIO N WHEREAS THE REAL EXTENSION HAS BEEN GRANTED BY THE DCIT, CENTRA L CIRECLE-17 VIDE LETTER DATED 13.04.2010. IT WAS ALSO ARGUED THAT WH ILE APPROVAL OF THE CIT, IS REQUIRED FOR ORDERING FRESH AUDIT U/S 1 42(2A), NO SUCH APPROVAL FOR EXTENSION IT IS NOT REQUIRED. IT IS TH E ADMINISTRATIVE PERMISSION SOUGHT BY THE DCIT FOR THE CIT, HENCE TH E ACTION CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ILLEGAL. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE, 1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECEIVED THE REQUEST F ROM SPECIAL AUDITOR FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE AUDIT U/S 142(2A) WHICH WAS ACCOUNT OF DELAY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SATISFIED ON THE REASO N SUBMITTED BY THE SPECIAL AUDITOR AND RECOMMENDED FOR EXTENSION TO CI T AS THERE WERE OTHER CASES HAVING INTER-GROUP TRANSACTION FOR SPEC IAL AUDIT AND EXTENSION WAS GRANTED BY CIT(C)-II, NEW DELHI. 3. CIT(C)-II, NEW DELHI HAS CONVEYED THE EXTENSION. 4. THE AO CONVEYED THE GRANTING OF EXTENSION OF 60 DAYS BY THE CIT, CENTRAL-II TO THE ASSESSEE. 16. THE SEC, 142 (2A) PROVIDES THAT THE DIRECTIONS FOR SPECIAL AUDIT SHALL BE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WITH THE P REVIOUS APPROVAL OF CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER. IN THIS CASE, T HERE IS NO DISPUTE ITA NOS. 4897 TO 4903/DEL/2014 ITA NOS. 5540 TO 5546/DEL/2014 15 THAT THESE DIRECTIONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN. THUS, THE LE GISLATURE CLEARLY INTENDED THAT INITIAL DIRECTION SHALL BE WITH THE A PPROVAL AND AFTER EXAMINATION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER BY THE HIGHER AFT ER PRIOR APPROVAL OF CIT, CENTRAL - II, NEW DELHI. THEREAFTER, PROVISO B ELOW SEC. 142 (2C) PROVIDES FOR THE PROCEDURE FOR GIVING EXTENSION FOR COMPLETING THE SPECIAL AUDIT TASK. IT CLEARLY PROVIDES THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER SHALL EXTEND THE SAID TIME PERIOD IF THE CONDITIONS AS ME NTIONED IN THE SAID PROVISO STANDS SATISFIED. THUS, WHILE INITIAL DIREC TION IS TO BE GIVEN WITH THE APPROVAL OF CCIT / CIT, HOWEVER, FOR EXTEN SION, IT IS ONLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAS TO TAKE A DECISION FOR EX TENSION. IT IS TO BE SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT THAT IN SEC. 142 (2A) LAW MANDATES THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF CCIT/ CIT, WHILE IN THE PROVISO BELOW S EC. 142 (2C), WHILE TO GRANT EXTENSION, THE SOLE POWER IS VESTED WITH T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE STATUTE U/S 142(2A) PROVIDES FOR SPECI AL AUDIT WITH THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL OF THE CIT IS INTENDED WITH AN OB JECTIVE THAT THE SUBJECT MATTER STANDS EXAMINED BY THE HIGHER AND MO RE EXPERIENCED OFFICERS SO THAT IT MAY NOT BRING UNNECESSARY WORK AND EQUITY TO THE ASSESSED. ONCE THE ISSUE U/S 142(2A) STANDS EXAMINE D BY THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES, THEREAFTER, FOR THE ISSUE OF EXTENSION U/S 142(2C), THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES TO BE INVOLVED A ND THE LAW PROVIDED THE CIRCUMSTANCES, ON EXISTENCE OF WHICH, THIS DECI SION HAS BEEN LEFT OVER TO BE TAKEN BY THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER . 17. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE EXTENSION HAS BEEN GIV EN BY CIT AND NOT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, VIDE LETTER DTD. 13.04.20 10, AS UNDER:- 'IN THIS CONNECTION YOU ARE HEREBY INFORMED THAT THE CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) - II, NEW DELHI VIDE HIS OFFIC E LETTER F.NO. CIT/(C)- LL/10-11/24 DATED 12/04/2010 HAS GRANTED EXTENSION OF 60 DAYS TO THE SPECIAL AUDITORS M/S. SANJAY SATPAL & ASSOCIATE S, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, FOR FURNISHING THE AUDIT REPORT U/S. 1 42 (2A) IN YOUR CASE.' 18. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE EVENT S AND THE VERBATIM OF THE LETTERS. WE ALSO TRIED TO DWELL WHE THER THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TO EXTEND THE PERIOD OR CONVEYING THE APPROVAL OF THE CIT. WHILE IT MAY BE AN ADMINISTR ATIVE PHENOMENON TO INTIMATE, INFORM THE CIT ABOUT THE FACT OF THE S PECIAL AUDIT PARTY APPOINTED SEEKING EXTENSION, BUT STATUTORILY THAT P OWER IS VESTED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON GOING THROUGH THE ESTABLI SHED JUDGMENT, IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT THE STATUTORY POWERS VESTED WITH ONE SPECIFIED AUTHORITY CANNOT BE EXERCISED BY ANOTHER AUTHORITY UNLESS AND UNTIL THE STATUTE PROVIDES FOR THE SAME. AND WE FIND THAT THE EXTENSION HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER 19. THE POWERS AND THE JURISDICTION OF THE VARIOUS AUTHORITIES TO IMPLEMENT THE INCOME TAX ACT STANDS CLEARLY DEFINED IN THE STATUTE. FOR EXAMPLE, THE POWER TO APPROVE THE ACCOUNTS AUDI TED U/S 142(2A) LIES WITH CIT/PCIT/CCIT OR PCCIT. THE POWERS U/S 14 4A ARE TO BE EXERCISED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OR ADDITIONAL C OMMISSIONER. THE POWERS U/S 251 ARE SPECIFIC TO THE COMMISSIONER (AP PEALS). SIMILARLY, THE POWERS U/S 263 AND 264 ARE TO BE EXERCISED BY T HE PCIT/CIT. ITA NOS. 4897 TO 4903/DEL/2014 ITA NOS. 5540 TO 5546/DEL/2014 16 FURTHER, IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED UNDER CLAUSE (A) OF SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 119 OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, MAY DIRECT THAT THE CHIEF COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME-TAX AND DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX MAY REDUCE OR WA IVE INTEREST CHARGED UNDER SECTION 234A OR SECTION 234B. FURTHER TO MENTION, WHILE LEVY OF THE PENALTY U/S 271AAB IS THE POWER O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE PROVISIONS U/S 274(2) MANDATES THAT TH E PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE JCIT IS REQUIRED BEFORE LEVY OF SUCH PENALTY. T HUS, WE FIND THAT THE STATUTE HAS ACCORDED IMPLEMENTATION OF THE VARI OUS PROVISIONS TO SPECIFIED AUTHORITIES WHICH CANNOT BE INTERCHANGED. 20. A POWER WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN TO A SPECIFIED AUT HORITY HAS TO BE DISCHARGED ONLY BY HIM. SUBSTITUTION OF THAT OFFICE R/AUTHORITY BY ANY OTHER OFFICER, MAY BE OF HIGHER RANK, CANNOT VALIDA TE THE SAID ORDER/ ACTION. THE EXTENSION COULD HAVE BEEN VALID ONLY IF IT HAD BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER DUE APPLICATION OF M IND AND AFTER EXAMINING THE EXISTENCE OF CIRCUMSTANCES AS PROVIDE D IN PROVISO BELOW SEC. 142 (2C), SINCE, IT HAS TO BE GIVEN ONLY BY COMPETENT AUTHORITY. IN THIS CASE, THE EXTENSION HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT BY THE CIT, CENTRAL-II AND TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ONLY CONVEYED THE APPROVAL, THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THE EXTENSION GIVEN BY THE CIT, CENTRAL-II IS BEYOND THE POWERS V ESTED AS PER THE STATUTE AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED AF TER THE DUE DATE IS HELD TO BE VOID AB INITIO. 14. THE ISSUE ARISING BEFORE US IS SIMILAR TO THE I SSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S SOUL SPACE PROJECTS LTD. (SUPRA). E VEN THE PUNCHNAMA FOR THE SEARCH WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF VARIOUS ENTITIES A S PER ANNEXURE-1 WHICH INCLUDED NAMES OF THE ASSESSEE AND M/S SOUL SPACE P ROJECTS LTD. IT MAY ALSO BE POINTED OUT THAT THE COMMISSIONER HAS ISSUED COM MON LETTER FOR BOTH THE ENTITIES UNDER WHICH THE SO-CALLED EXTENSION OF 60 DAYS WAS GIVEN FOR CONDUCT OF SPECIAL AUDIT. IN THE ENTIRETY OF ABOVE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE UNDER PROVISO TO SECTION 142(2C) OF THE ACT, JURISDICTION WAS UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND AFTER DUE APPLICATION OF MIND PASS AN ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION FOR CONDUCT OF SPECIAL AUD IT UNDER SECTION 142(2A) OF THE ACT AND AS NO EXTENSION HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER BUT BY THE COMMISSIONER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ONLY CON VEYED THE APPROVAL, ITA NOS. 4897 TO 4903/DEL/2014 ITA NOS. 5540 TO 5546/DEL/2014 17 THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THE GRANT OF EXTENSION BY T HE COMMISSIONER IS BEYOND THE POWERS ENSHRINED UNDER THE STATUTE. ACCORDINGL Y, THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED AFTER THE DUE DATE IS HELD TO BE VOID-AB-INITIO . 15. SINCE, WE HAVE DECIDED THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO NEED TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE RAISED ON MERITS AS THE SAME BECOME ACADEMIC IN NATURE. THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS THUS ALLOWED. 16. THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE RAISED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2008- 09 BEING SIMILAR TO THE ISSUE RAISED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, OUR DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTA NDI. 17. NOW, COMING TO THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE, THE SAME ARE ON MERITS, ARE DISMISSED AS ASSESSMENT ORDER IS HELD TO BE VOID-AB-INITIO . 18. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLO WED AND APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2020. SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) & ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / VICE PRESIDENT / ) DATED : 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2020 F{X~{T? FA P.S , ITA NOS. 4897 TO 4903/DEL/2014 ITA NOS. 5540 TO 5546/DEL/2014 18 *)+),'#-.)/.#0 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. 12) / THE APPELLANT 2. ,3 12) / THE RESPONDENT 3. ) 4# 5 )6 / THE CIT(A) 4. 7)) 4#) / THE PR. CIT 5. 6. ) .89),'#' ): )) : ) / DR, ITAT, DELHI 9;<)=))0 GUARD FILE. ) * / BY ORDER , 3.#),'# // TRUE COPY // > ?@'A , )) ): ) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI