Facts of the Case

The petitioner, NBCC (India) Ltd., a government-backed construction company, filed its income tax return for AY 2017–18 and subsequently revised it. The case was selected for scrutiny under Section 143(2).

During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued multiple notices under Section 142(1) raising extensive queries (over 50). The petitioner responded to most queries with explanations and documents.

However, the AO, citing complexity, volume, and discrepancies in accounts, issued a show-cause notice proposing a special audit under Section 142(2A) and subsequently passed an order directing such audit.

The petitioner challenged this order before the Delhi High Court under Article 226.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the AO validly exercised powers under Section 142(2A) for ordering a special audit.
  2. Whether proper opportunity of hearing was provided before ordering special audit.
  3. Whether complexity and discrepancies in accounts justified invoking Section 142(2A).
  4. Whether absence of a specific notice under Section 142(2A) vitiates the proceedings.
  5. Scope of judicial review over AO’s subjective satisfaction.

 Petitioner’s Arguments

  • No valid notice under Section 142(2A): Notices were issued under Section 142(1), not specifically under 142(2A).
  • Violation of natural justice: No proper pre-decisional hearing was granted.
  • No complexity in accounts: The petitioner argued that all details were furnished and accounts were regularly accepted in prior years.
  • Mechanical exercise of power: AO failed to apply independent mind and relied on incomplete data.
  • Mala fide action: Special audit was allegedly triggered after dispute regarding advance tax payment.
  • Reliance on precedent: Cited Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT requiring objective satisfaction for special audit.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The AO had ample material indicating complexity and discrepancies in accounts.
  • Multiple issues remained unverified due to incomplete responses by the assessee.
  • A show-cause opportunity was provided satisfying principles of natural justice.
  • Special audit was necessary in the interest of revenue.
  • Judicial review is limited and cannot substitute AO’s satisfaction.

Court’s Findings / Judgment

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order directing special audit.

Key Findings:

1. Validity of Special Audit

The Court held that the AO had recorded detailed reasons demonstrating complexity, including:

  • Mismatch in TDS claims
  • Abnormal fluctuations in profit margins
  • Increase in trade payables without corresponding expenses
  • Issues in inventory and work-in-progress
  • Unverified provisions and accounting discrepancies

2. Subjective Satisfaction of AO

  • The Court emphasized that subjective satisfaction of the AO, if based on objective material, cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

3. Adequate Opportunity of Hearing

  • The notice dated 13.09.2019 was treated as a valid show-cause notice, even if titled under Section 142(1).
  • Principles of natural justice were complied with.

4. No Requirement of Personal Hearing

  • The Court clarified that “reasonable opportunity” does not necessarily include personal hearing.

5. Limited Scope of Judicial Review

  • The Court reiterated that it cannot act as an appellate authority to re-examine accounts 

Important Clarifications by the Court

  • Substance over form: Even if a notice is labeled under Section 142(1), it can serve as a valid show-cause under Section 142(2A) if content supports it.
  • Complexity includes multiple factors: Volume, multiplicity of transactions, doubts on correctness, and incomplete compliance.
  • No personal hearing mandatory: Written opportunity suffices under Section 142(2A).
  • Past acceptance of accounts is irrelevant if current discrepancies exist.

Link to download the order -https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2019:DHC:7277-DB/SVN24122019CW138222019_120658.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.