Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Hon’ble Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Prateek Jalan denied the Patanjali's contention that the Assessing Officer did not apply his mind while granting the impugned order; rather, the court said that the AO has deliberately looked into all the relevant aspects before passing such order.
Patanjali had challenged the special audit ordered by the AO for the period 2010-11 by stating that the AO intended to evade from his primary responsibility of examing books and returns and completing the assessments in time.
On the other side, the I-T Department contended that AO had to scrutinize the complexity of the assessee's accounts, and therefore, he was justified in ordering for a special audit. The I-T Department had to ascertain the method and the respective accounting standard to recognize income of the petitioner from three sources of revenue. The Court stated that there is no error in the impugned order made by the AO. Since the AO had only two choices, namely: To let go of the stage of enquiry, and complete the assessment, or, disallow what is considered appropriate, and the latter is not preferable to the AO, he had to go for the Special Audit.
Hence, the High Court upheld the impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer. As a consequence, the interim relief in favour of Patanjali became inoperative. Therefore, the court directed Patanjali to co-operate with the Special Auditor and dismissed the writ petition by concluding that the period in which the interim relief was effective shall stand excluded for the purpose of calculating the period for completion of such special audit.
86540
103860
630
114
59824