SAHARA INDIA INTERNATIONAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 142(2A) of the IT Act, 1961 ('Act') to the following effect :

(2.) THE petitioner sought for and was provided detailed reasons that led to the making of the above order. The petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner has already supplied all the details sought for by the Department and further that the said order does not indicate that the officer concerned has examined the books of account of the petitioner which is a sine qua non for invoking the power under s. 142(2A) of the Act.

(3.) WE have considered the detailed decisions of this Court in Gurunanak Enterprises vs. CIT and Anr. (2003) 180 CTR (Del) 203 : (2003) 259 ITR 637 (Del) and Yum Restaurants India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2005) 196 CTR (Del) 435 : (2005) 278 ITR 401 (Del). Our attention has been drawn to the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Jhunjhunwala Vanaspati Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT and Anr. (2004) 188 CTR (All) 434 : (2004) 266 ITR 657 (All). In Jhunjhunwala (supra), the Division Bench has taken the view that no civil consequences follow and therefore, the High Court should not interfere in its decision under s. 142(2A) of the IT Act. We note that in Gurunanak Enterprises (supra) as well as Yum Restaurants (supra), the Benches of this Court took the view that civil consequences would follow. Our attention has also been drawn to decision in Ramesh Chand Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India (1998) 100 Taxman 570 (Del). Furthermore, in Living Media Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr. (2002) 175 CTR (SC) 299 : (2002) 255 ITR 268 (SC), the Division Bench of this Court dismissed a writ petition "keeping in view of the simple fact that the petitioner has voluminous details running into 500 pages to explain the queries raised by the assessing authority. Further details running into about thousand pages were also filed by the assessee before the assessing authority." When this decision was carried in appeal, the apex Court declined to interfere.