SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORPORATION LTD KOLKATTA V. CIT I NEW DELHI AND ORS

W.P.(C)/1014/2011

AI Insights

The case involves multiple writ petitions filed by Sahara India entities against the Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, concerning the conduct of special audits over several assessment years. The petitions were heard by the High Court of Delhi, which found the reasons for conducting the special audits justified and did not see a need for interference. The court's decision focused on the procedural aspect of how these audits should be conducted, emphasizing that they should be carried out one after the other rather than simultaneously, to facilitate effective participation and minimize disruption.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 746148 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-08-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ZOHEB HOSSAIN; DEEPAK ANAND
• Assessee Lawyers: SATYEN SETHI; ARTA TRANA PANDA
• Keywords: Assessment years; Income Tax; Special Audit; Sahara India

Judgement Text

"$~18 to 31 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3222/2008 SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD. LUCKNOW ..... Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 8157/2009 SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD. ..... Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 8160/2009 SAHARA INDIA, LUCKNOW ..... Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 14123/2009 SAHARA INDIA(FIRM) LUCKNOW THROUGH J.B.ROY PARTNER ..... Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI CENTRAL-I NEW DELHI AND ANOTHER ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 14141/2009 SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD LUCKNOW ..... Petitioner W.P.(C) 3222/2008 page 1 of 5 versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI (CENTRAL)-I NEW DELHI AND ANOTHER ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 886/2011 SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD LUCKNOW ..... Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 888/2011 SAHARA INDIA FIRM LUCKNOW ..... Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 1009/2011 SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORPORATION LTD KOLKATTA ..... Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I NEW DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 1010/2011 SAHAR INDIA COMMERCIAL CORPORATION LTD KOLKATTA ..... Petitioner versus CIT I NEW DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 1011/2011 SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORPORATION LTD KOLKATTA ..... Petitioner versus W.P.(C) 3222/2008 page 2 of 5 CIT I NEW DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 1012/2011 SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORPORATION LTD KOLKATTA ..... Petitioner versus CIT I NEW DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 1013/2011 SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORPORATION KOLKATTA ..... Petitioner versus CIT I NEW DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 1014/2011 SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORPORATION LTD KOLKATTA ..... Petitioner versus CIT I NEW DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 3272/2013 SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD LUCKNOW ..... Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI (CENTRAL)-I NEW DELHI AND OTHERS ..... Respondents Present: Mr. Satyen Sethi & Mr. Arta Trana Panda, Advs. for Petitioner. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Deepak Anand, Jr. Standing Counsel for Revenue. W.P.(C) 3222/2008 page 3 of 5 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA O R D E R % 02.08.2018 After the Court had heard the petitions and was of the opinion that the reasons given for carrying out the special audit in the facts and circumstances of these petitions were justified and no interference is called for, learned counsel submits that though he has no instructions but seeks permission to withdraw. He, however, states that to facilitate the process of special audit with respect to the years in question, given that they span upto five assessment years and are in respect of three entities, the Court should ensure that for effective participation, the special audits are not conducted together rather one after the other (consecutive periods). This is not objected to by the counsel for the Revenue. Accordingly, it is hereby directed that the special audit shall be carried on in the following manner: 1. Firstly, in respect of Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., commencing with Assessment Years (2001-02 to 2004-05, 2007-08 and 2008-09). 2. Subsequently, after completing year-wise special audit in the case of Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd. (for AYs 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2010-11), others shall be taken up again one after the other i.e. after completion on a year-wise basis. W.P.(C) 3222/2008 page 4 of 5 3. Thirdly, special audit for Sahara India Firm (for AYs 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09) shall be taken up one after the other. To ensure that there is no dispute or controversy with respect to limitation, it is directed that the interim orders staying special audit for all the Assessment Years, which are the subject matter of these writ petitions and the subsequent years, would continue to bind the parties till the respective audit for the concerned Assessment Years are completed. The Court is of the opinion that these directions are necessary because simultaneously special audit for all years would pose difficulties and inconvenience to both the Revenue and especially to the assessee. The writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn but in terms of the above directions. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J A. K. CHAWLA, J AUGUST 02, 2018/akv W.P.(C) 3222/2008 page 5 of 5 "