PANI DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order under Section 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, requiring the petitioner to get his accounts audited from a certified auditor mentioned in the order.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the power to get accounts audited under Section 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act cannot be invoked in cases where the accounts of the assessee are already audited by reason of the provisions of Section 44AE. The submission is that by a subsequent statutory amendment, it has been considered that in all cases of assessment involving a particular sum of money and above, there will be a complexity of accounts and, therefore, audit of those accounts is made compulsory. The Legislature has by necessary implication curtailed the powers under Section 142(2A) requiring audit being" done by a certified auditor under that provision. According" to learned counsel, power to get accounts audited under Section 142(2A) cannot be invoked, in cases where audit has already been made as statutorily required by Section 44AB, I am unable to accept this contention of learned counsel for the reasons that the audit imposed and contemplated by Section 44AB is a general provision applicable to every person either individual or firm, as the case may be. Having a particular minimum turnover or income irrespective of the complexity of accounts whereas power under Section 142(2A) can be invoked only in cases where in pending assessment proceedings, it is found that the complexity of accounts requires audit by a certified auditor. This order also requires prior approval of the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be. It, therefore, stipulates that the application of mind by the Commissioner in cases where there already exists an audit done under Section 44AB and, consequently, where such order is made after approval of the Commissioner or Chief Commissioner, as the case may be, it is presumed that the general audit under Section 44AB is not sufficient for the purposes of arriving at the correct assessment in the interests of the Revenue. It has already been held by this court in Abhay Kumar and Co. v. Union of India [1987] 164 !TR 148 that the provisions of Sections 44AB and 142(2A) are not in any manner conflicting with each other. In such circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the order dated November 29, 1994.