PAWAN KUMAR JAIN Vs. ASSTT COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the appointment of a special auditor vide order dated 9-8-2002, the petitioner has challenged the same before this Court.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had started a business of iron and steel in the year 1992-93. Ever since then, he was regularly filing the Income-tax returns on a regular basis after proper auditing in accordance with the provisions of Section 44-AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short). He was surprised to receive a notice under Section 158 (BC) of the Act, on 9-2-2001, wherein he was required to file return of income in the prescribed form for alleged undisclosed income. Vide letter dated 28-8-2001, the petitioner requested for the copy of the seized record and the statement recorded, so that he could file a proper return. But before the petitioner could file a proper return, the Assessing Officer issued a questionnaire under Section 142(1) of the Act for the purpose of Block Assessment. Eventually, the Block Assessment was filed on 10-7-2002. But before the petitioner could file his reply to the questionnaire, without giving him an opportunity of hearing, vide order dated 9-8-2002, the Assessing Officer directed that a special auditor be appointed under Section 142(2A) of the Act. Immediately, on 10-9-2002, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent, wherein he claimed that the appointment of special auditor was absolutely unjustified. For, neither any complexity of accounts, nor any interest of revenue was involved in order to justify the appointment of special auditor. Since, the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, he has approached this Court.

(3.) Mr. N. R. Saran, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has contended that passing of an order under Section 142(2A) of the Act is not an administrative function, but is a quasi- judicial function. Therefore, the quasi-judicial order can be passed only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. However, in the present case, the respondent did not give any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Hence, his rights under principles of natural justice have been violated. In order to support his contention, the learned Counsel has relied upon the case of Rajesh Kumar v. Deuty Commissioner of Income-tax 2006(2) 287 I.T.R. 91 (SC).