M/s Chet Ram Ravi Kumar, Mukatsar V. DCIT, Ludhiana

ITA 696/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4062 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 year(s) 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-08-2021
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 10-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C CHANDRAKANTA
• Assessee Lawyers: ADITYA KUMAR
• Keywords: Loose papers; Principle of natural justice; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 142(2A); 153C; 132; 12; 2

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH , ! ' # $ %! , BEFORE: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NOS.696 TO 698/CHD/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 TO 2005-06 M/S CHET RAM RAVI KUMAR, 101, NEW GRAIN MARKET, MUKTSAR. THE D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-III, LUDHIANA. ./PAN NO: AABFC6298B /APPELLANT /RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR, CA & SHRI ADITYA KUMAR, CA ! / REVENUE BY : SMT.C.CHANDRAKANTA, CIT ' # $ /DATE OF HEARING : 25.08.2021 %&'( $ /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.10.2021 (HEARING THROUGH WEBEX) /ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE SA ME ASSESSEE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, LUDHIANA [( IN SHORT THE LD. CIT(A)] ALL DATED 25.03.2013 RELATIN G TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2005-06 RESPECTIVELY, PASSED ITA NOS.696 TO 698/CHD/2013 A.YS. 2003-04 TO 2005-06 PAGE 2 OF 12 U/S 250(6) OF THE OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HERE INAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT). IT WAS COMMON GROUND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS INVOLVED IN ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS, HENCE, THE SAME WERE TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR HEARING AND ARE BEING DECIDED BY A COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT ID ENTICAL GROUNDS HAD BEEN RAISED IN ALL THE APPEALS WHICH RE AD AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GRAVELY ERRED IN UPHOLDING ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 153A READ WITH SECTION 143(3) WHICH WAS OTHERWISE TIME BARRED IN AS MUCH AS THE VERY REFERENCE U/S 142(2A) WAS UNWARRANTED AGAINST LAW AND FACTS ON THE FILE. 2. THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED ON THE BASIS OF AUDIT REPORT U/S 142(2A) DESERVES TO BE QUASHED IN AS MUCH AS THE SPECIAL AUDITOR HAS TRAVELLED BEYOND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142(2A) FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING THE AUDIT. 3. REFERRING TO THE ABOVE, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE STATED THAT IN ALL THE THREE APPEALS A COMMON SOLIT ARY GROUND WAS BEING PRESSED RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEING TIME BARRED, HAVING BEEN PASSED IN THE EXTEN DED TIME LIMIT ON ACCOUNT OF REFERENCE MADE FOR CONDUCTING S PECIAL ITA NOS.696 TO 698/CHD/2013 A.YS. 2003-04 TO 2005-06 PAGE 3 OF 12 AUDIT U/S 142(2A) OF THE ACT, WHICH REFERENCE WAS N OT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. AS FOR THE OTHER GROUND, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE WAS NOT PRESSING THE SAME BEFORE US. 4. WITH RESPECT TO GROUND BEING ARGUED, THE LD.COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED THER EIN STOOD COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION O F THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF SUNDER MAL SATPAL VS. DCIT IN I TA NOS.154 TO 157/CHD/2013 VIDE ORDER DATED 15.06.2018 . THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE FA CTS IN THE CASE OF M/S SUNDER MAL SATPAL (SUPRA) WERE IDENTIC AL TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD BEEN SUBJECTED TO SEARCH PROCEEDINGS U/S 132 OF THE ACT ON 24.10.2007 AND DURING SEARCH CERTAIN INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS RELATING TO M/S SUNDER MAL SATPAL, WHO W AS A SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE, WERE FOUND AND SEIZ ED. ACCORDINGLY PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C OF THE ACT WERE IN ITIATED AND ASSESSMENT COMPLETED ON M/S SUNDER MAL SATPAL. HE CONTENDED THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF BOT H THE ASSESSEE AND M/S SUNDER MAL, A REFERENCE FOR SPECI AL AUDIT U/S 142(2A) OF THE ACT WAS MADE BY A COMMON LETTER AND THE REASONS FOR MAKING THE REFERENCE WAS IDENTICAL. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE LETTER OF THE AO DATED 13.01.2010 DIRECTING THE ASSESSEE AND M/S SUNDER M AL ITA NOS.696 TO 698/CHD/2013 A.YS. 2003-04 TO 2005-06 PAGE 4 OF 12 SATPAL TO GET THEIR ACCOUNTS AUDITED U/S 142(2A) OF THE ACT, PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NOS.8 AND 9 AS UNDER: NO.ACIT/CC-III/LDH/489 OFFICE OF THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-III, LUDHIANA. DATED LUDHIANA THE 13.01.2010 TO SHRI RAVI KUMAR BANSAL C/O M/S CHET RAM RAVI KUMAR, 2-NEW GRAIN MARKET, MUKTSAR. SIR, SUB:- REGARDING SPECIAL AUDIT U/S 142(2A) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN THE CASES OF M/S CHET RAM RAVI KUMAR, M/S SUNDER MAL SAT PAL & SH.RAVI KUMAR BANSAL OF MUKTSA R. *** THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), LUDHIANA VIDE ORDER NO.CIT(C)/LDH/(JB/09-10/ 4166 DATED 23/12/200 9 THE FOLLOWING CASES HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR SPECIAL AUDI T AND APPOINTED OF M/S P.C.GOYAL & COMPANY, 62 NEW LAJPAT NAGAR, PAKHOWAL ROAD, LUDHIANA FOR THIS PURPOSES. S.NO. NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ASTT. YEAR 1. M/S CHET RAM RAVI KUMAR,101 2002-02 TO 2007-08 NEW GRAIN MARKET ,MUKTSAR 2. SH.RAVI KUMAR BANSAL C/O ABOVE. 2002-03 TO 2008-09 3. M/S SUNDER MAL SAT PAL, 2002-03 TO 2 008-09 101, NEW GRAIN MARKET, MUKTSAR THE PURPOSE OF THE SPECIAL AUDIT IS:- I) TO TRANSLATE THE BOOKS FOUND FROM MAHAJANI TO ENGLI SH. II) TO BIFURCATE THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED IN THE KACHA CASH BOOK SO AS TO CLARIFY WHETHER THEY PERTAIN TO M/S C HET RAM RAVI KUMAR OR SUNDER MAL SAT PAL. III) TO BIFURCATE THE ACCOUNTED TRANSACTION FROM UNACCOU NTED TRANSACTION TO ARRIVE AT A DEFINITE CONCLUSION AND ALSO RECONCILE THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WITH THESE SEIZED BOOKS. IV) RECONCILIATION OF THE PROMOTES WITH THE REGULAR BOO KS OF ACCOUNT TO BIFURCATE THE ACCOUNTED FOR PRONOTES FRO M THE UNACCOUNTED ONES AND TO WORK OUT THE INTEREST INCOM E EARNED ON THESE ADVANCES AND ALSO TO CHECK THE SOUR CE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THESE ADVANCES, ON YEARLY BASIS FROM ASSTT.YEAR 2002-03 TO ASSTT.YEAR 2008-09. V) TO REDRAW THE BALANCE SHEET, P&L A/C FROM A.Y.2002- 03 TO 2008-09 SO AS TO ARRIVE AT A TRUE AND CORRECT INCOM E. VI) TO CHECK THE LOOSE PAPERS FOUND AND RECONCILE THEM WITH ITA NOS.696 TO 698/CHD/2013 A.YS. 2003-04 TO 2005-06 PAGE 5 OF 12 THE ASSESSEE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. YOU ARE AGAIN REQUESTED TO COOPERATE WITH M/S P.C.G OYAL & COMPANY, 62-NEW LAJPAT NAGAR, PAKHOWAL ROAD, LUDHIANA FOR THE PURPOSE OF SPECIAL AUDIT IMMEDIATE LY, SO THAT THE NECESSARY AUDIT MAY BE DONE IN TIME AND TH E SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT IS SUBMITTED TO THE UNDERSIGNE D BY 31/03/2010. SD/- YOURS FAITHFULLY, (DR.D.S.SIDHU) ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-III, LUDHIANA 5. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE CASE OF M/S SUNDER MSAL SATPAL, THE ITAT HAD HELD T HE REFERENCE OF THE AO U/S 142(2A) OF THE ACT AS NOT I N ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED WAS HELD TO BE BARRED BY LIMITATION SINCE TH E EXTENDED PERIOD TAKEN UNDER THE GUISE OF SPECIAL AU DIT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN COUNTED. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO T HE ORDER IN THE CASE OF M/S SUNDER MAL SATPAL (SUPRA) , PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NOS. 31 TO 44. THE LD.COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER POINTED OUT THAT SUBSEQUENTLY T HE DEPARTMENT HAD FILED A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IN THE SAID ORDER BEFORE THE ITAT RAISING THE CONTENTION T HAT THE ITAT DID NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE TH E VALIDITY OF THE ORDER FOR SPECIAL AUDIT , BASING ITS CONTENT ION ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F SAHARA INDIA (FIRM) VS. CIT (2008) 169 TAXMAN 328 (SC). HE POINTED OUT THAT THE SAID MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WAS ALS O DISMISSED BY THE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER IN M.A.NOS.6 T O ITA NOS.696 TO 698/CHD/2013 A.YS. 2003-04 TO 2005-06 PAGE 6 OF 12 9/CHD/2019 DATED 19.03.2021. COPY OF THE ORDER WAS PLACED BEFORE US. THE CONTENTS OF THE SAME FROM PARA 2 TO 5 ARE AS UNDER: 2. THE RECALL IS BEING SOUGHT FOR IDENTICAL REASONS IN ALL THE FOUR MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS, BEING THAT THE ITAT HAD ACTED BEYOND ITS JURISDICTION WHILE ADJUDICATING THE VALIDITY OF THE REFERENCE MADE BY THE AO FOR SPECIAL AUDIT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142(2A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) IN THE IMPUGNED APPEALS. THE REVENUE, FOR THE SAID PROPOSITION, HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJESH KUMAR VS. DCIT (2006) 157 TAXMAN 168 (SC) AND SAHARA INDIA (FIRM) VS. CIT (2008) 169 TAXMAN 328 (SC). 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US IT WAS POINTED OUT AT BAR TO THE LD. DR THAT THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ITAT & ANOTHER IN WP(C)7734/2017 DATED 01.09.2017 ,ON BEING SEIZED WITH THE IDENTICAL ISSUE WHETHER THE CHALLENGE TO THE ORDER U/S 142(2A) COULD BE RAISED BEFORE THE ITAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN SAHARA INDIA (FIRM) VS. CIT (SUPRA), HAD HELD THAT THE OBSERVATION MADE IN THAT DECISION WAS IN THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THAT CASE AND WAS NOT MEANT TO BE A GENERAL OBSERVATION APPLICABLE ACROSS THE BOARD FOR ALL CASES. THAT AT PARA 9 OF THE ORDER THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAD CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE ITAT OUGHT TO HAVE ENTERTAINED THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS PERTAINING TO THE VALIDITY OF REFERENCE MADE U/S 142(2A) OF THE ACT. 4. THE LD. DR, AFTER GOING THROUGH THE AFORESAID ORDER, FAIRLY AGREED THAT THE ISSUE HAD BEEN CONSIDERED AS ABOVE BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE AFORESAID DECISION. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY ITA NOS.696 TO 698/CHD/2013 A.YS. 2003-04 TO 2005-06 PAGE 7 OF 12 THE REVENUE SINCE THE ADJUDICATION OF THE REFERENCE TO SPECIAL AUDIT BY THE ITAT HAS BEEN HELD TO BE WELL WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ITAT & ANOTHER (SUPRA), THAT TOO AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN SAHARA INDIA(SUPRA). THEREFORE, WITH REGARD TO THE SAME, THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE ITAT. 6. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, STAT ED THAT THE ISSUE IN THE IMPUGNED CASES STOOD SQUARELY COVE RED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S SUNDER MAL SATPAL (SUPRA). 7. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, VEHEMENTLY CONTES TED THE STAND OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE PRIMARY CONTENTION BEING THAT THE ITAT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER FOR SPECIAL AUDIT AND SHE RELIED HEAVILY ON THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN T HE CASE OF RAJESH KUMAR VS. DCIT (2006) 157 TAXMAN 168 (SC) FO R THE SAID PURPOSE. BESIDES THE ABOVE, SHE WAS UNABLE TO CONTROVERT THE FACT BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE LD .COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE REFERENCE TO SPECIAL AUDI T IN THE IMPUGNED CASE WAS FOR IDENTICAL PURPOSES AS IN THE CASE OF SUNDER MAL SATPAL (SUPRA) VIDE A COMMON LETTER OF T HE AO AS REPRODUCED ABOVE. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. WE HAVE ALSO GON E THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S SU NDER MAL ITA NOS.696 TO 698/CHD/2013 A.YS. 2003-04 TO 2005-06 PAGE 8 OF 12 SATPAL (SUPRA), THE ORDER OF THE AO DIRECTING SPECI AL AUDIT AS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE AND ALSO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT IN MISCELLANE OUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IN THE ITAT ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF M/S SUNDER MAL SATPAL (SUPRA). 9. ON GOING THROUGH THE CONTENTS OF THE ABOVE, THER E IS NO DOUBT THAT VIS A VIS THE ISSUE BEFORE US OF VALIDI TY OF REFERENCE MADE BY AO FOR SPECIAL AUDIT U/S 142(2A) OF THE ACT, THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CAS E ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT IN THE CASE OF M/S SUNDER MAL SA TPAL (SUPRA). WE HAVE NOTED FROM THE LETTER OF THE AO D IRECTING SPECIAL AUDIT(P.B 8-9), THAT THE REFERENCE IN THE IMPUGNED CASE WAS MADE ALONG WITH THAT FOR M/S SUNDER MAL S ATPAL (SUPRA), FOR IDENTICAL REASONS, WHICH REASONS WERE FOUND TO BE INSUFFICIENT FOR DIRECTING A SPECIAL AUDIT ,BY T HE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S SUNDER MAL SATPAL. IT WAS SO HELD N OTING THAT THERE WAS NO COMPLEXITY IN THE ACCOUNTS POINTE D OUT BY THE AO WHILE MAKING THE REFERENCE, WHICH WAS A PRER EQUISITE FOR MAKING REFERENCE FOR SPECIAL AUDIT. 10. THE REVENUE HAS BEEN UNABLE TO CONTROVERT THE AFORESTATED FACTS. THE ISSUE THEREFORE STANDS SQUA RELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF SUN DER MAL SATPAL (SUPRA). ITA NOS.696 TO 698/CHD/2013 A.YS. 2003-04 TO 2005-06 PAGE 9 OF 12 11. THE REVENUES CONTENTION QUESTIONING THE JURISDI CTION OF THE ITAT TO ADJUDICATE THE VALIDITY OF THE REFERENC E FOR SPECIAL AUDIT U/S 142(2A) OF THE ACT, ADMITTEDLY A LSO STANDS REJECTED IN THE SAID CASE, IN THE ORDER OF THE ITA T PASSED IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE LD.CIT(DR) HAS SOUGHT TO DISTINGUISH THE SAME BY RE LYING ON THE ORDER OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJESH K UMAR VS. DCIT (2008)169 TAXMAN 328(SC). 12. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE SAME. AS NOTED ABOVE THIS CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE RAISED BY WAY OF A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF SUNDER MAL SATPAL (SUPRA) ALREADY STANDS DISMISSED BY THE ITAT. ALL T HE SAME, ADDRESSING THE SPECIFIC REFERENCE BY THE LD.DR TO T HE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJESH KU MAR (SUPRA),WE FIND THAT, TAKING NOTE OF THE SAID DECIS ION THIS ARGUMENT OF THE REVENUE HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE I TAT IN VARIOUS DECISIONS. IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THOUGH ORD ER DIRECTING SPECIAL AUDIT IS OTHERWISE NOT APPEALABLE BUT WHILE CHALLENGING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS BEING BAR RED BY LIMITATION, THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER DIRECTING SP ECIAL AUDIT U/S 142(2A) CAN BE CHALLENGED, ALBEIT FOR THIS LIM ITED PURPOSE ALONE. IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT FOR COMING TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS BARRED BY LIMITATION, ALL ASPECTS INTEGRAL TO THE PROCESS AND ULTIMATE ITA NOS.696 TO 698/CHD/2013 A.YS. 2003-04 TO 2005-06 PAGE 10 OF 12 COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT CAN BE CHALLENGED AND CONS IDERED FOR DECIDING THE SAME. THE RELEVANT DECISIONS ARE: UNITECH LIMITED VS ACIT IN ITA NO.5180 /DEL/2013 DATED 08.04.2016: FURTHERMORE, THE JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE REVE NUE ALSO DO NOT LEAD US TO TAKE DIFFERENT VIEW OF THE MATTER THE FIRST JUDGMENT RELIED UPON IS THE CASE OF RAJESH KUMAR AND ORS V CIT (SUPRA). IN THIS CASE THE HON'B LE COURT HAS HELD IN PARA 34 THAT THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT CA N BE SUBJECT MATTER OF AN APPEAL; AND NOT, A DIRECTION I SSUED U/S I42(2A) OF THE ACT. IN THIS APPEAL THERE IS NO CHAL LENGE TO THE DIRECTIONS U/S 142(2A) OF THE ACT. THE CHALLENGE IS THAT ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION WHICH IS A VA LID CONTENTION SUPPORTED BY THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SAHARA INDIA (FIRM) V CIT (SUP RA). THE CHALLENGING TO THE VALIDITY OF ORDER U/S 142(2A) OF THE ACT IS CONFINED TO THE EXTENT THAT ORDER IS BARRED BY LIMI TATION AND NOT TO THE EXTENT OF REFUNDING THE FEES OR ANY OTHE R CONSEQUENCE FLOWING OUT OF THE ORDER U/S 142(2A) O F THE ACT. FURTHER OBSERVATION OF HON'BLE COURT THAT PRINCIPLE S OF NATURAL JUSTICE ARC REQUIRED TO BE COMPLIED WITH HAS ALSO B EEN REAFFIRMED IN THE CASE OF SAHARA INDIA (FIRM) (SUPR A). THE JUDGMENT OF AT&T COMMUNICATION SERVICES INDIA (P) L TD. V CIT (SUPRA) IS ON FACTS AND HAS NO APPLICATION TO T HE CASE OF APPELLANT COMPANY. ALSO THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF DLF LTD. V ADDL. CIT (SUPRA), HAS NO APPLICATION AS HER ETO NONE OF THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BEFORE US HAVE BEEN DECIDED TO THE CONTRARY. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE HAS N OT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY MATERIAL SO AS TO ARRIVE AT D IFFERENT VIEW OF THE MATTER. CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES INDIA PVT. LIMITED VS ACIT (2019) 198 TTJ 0121 (DEL): 17. THE QUARREL BEFORE US IS AS TO WHETHER THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER FRAMED U/S 143(3) IS PASSED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PERIOD PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT OR NOT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, FOR COMING TO SUCH A CONCLUSION , WE CAN EXAMINE WHETHER THE ORDER PASSED U/S 142(2A) OF THE ACT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW OR NOT. IT IS TRUE THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S 142(2A) OF THE ACT IS NOT APPEALABLE BUT WHEN A N ASSESSMENT ORDER IS CHALLENGED, THEN THE DIFFERENT ASPECTS, ITA NOS.696 TO 698/CHD/2013 A.YS. 2003-04 TO 2005-06 PAGE 11 OF 12 WHICH ARE INTEGRAL TO THE PROCESS AND ULTIMATE COMP LETION OF THE AMOUNT CAN BE CHALLENGED IN APPEAL AND SINCE TH E GROUND BEFORE US IS CHALLENGED FOR ASSESSMENT BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION, WE ARE WELL WITHIN OUR RIGHTS TO CONSID ER ALL MATERIAL ASPECTS WHICH WERE CONSIDERED WHILE FRAMIN G THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. 13. FURTHER AS NOTED IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CO ORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED I N THE CASE OF SUNDER MAL SATPAL (SUPRA) THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES PRIV ATE LIMITED VS. ITAT & ANOTHER IN WP(C)7734/2017 DATED 01.09.2017, HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT IT IS WELL WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ITAT TO ENTERTAIN THE GROUN DS RELATING TO VALIDITY OF REFERENCE TO SPECIAL AUDIT, AFTER NOTING THAT THE OBSERVATION TO THE CONTRARY BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SAHARA INDIA (SUPRA) WAS SPECI FIC TO THOSE CASES. 14. THE DISTINCTION THEREFORE SOUGHT TO BE MADE BY THE REVENUE, FROM THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE MA IN THE CASE OF SUNDER MAL SATPAL (SUPRA), WE HOLD IS OF NO RELEVANCE. 15. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SINCE UNDISPUTEDLY THE ISS UE RAISED BEFORE US, OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BE ING BARRED BY LIMITATION ON ACCOUNT OF AN INVALID REFER ENCE MADE FOR SPECIAL AUDIT, ARISES IN THE BACKGROUND OF FAC TS WHICH ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT IN THE CASE OF M/S SUNDER MA L SATPAL, ITA NOS.696 TO 698/CHD/2013 A.YS. 2003-04 TO 2005-06 PAGE 12 OF 12 IT STANDS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN TH E SAID CASE, FOLLOWING WHICH WE HOLD THAT THE REFERENCE FOR SPECIAL AUDIT IN THE PRESENT CASES, U/S 142(A) OF THE ACT, IS INVALID AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS SO PASSED IN THE EXTENDED TIME ARE HELD TO BE BARRED BY LIMITATION. 16. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE CAPTIONED APPEALS OF TH E ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 4 TH OCTOBER, 2021. SD/- SD/- ' # $ %! (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER &' /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER )' /DATED: 4 TH OCTOBER, 2021 * ! * &) *+,+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ' - / CIT 4. ' - ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. +./ 0 , $0 , 123/4 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. /35# / GUARD FILE &) ' / BY ORDER, / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR