Loading...

Pradeep Maheswari vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And … on 10 March, 1999

Kerala High Court
Pradeep Maheswari vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And … on 10 March, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2001 250 ITR 453 Ker
Author: J Koshy
Bench: J Koshy


JUDGMENT

J.B. Koshy, J.

1. The assessee was a member of the Cochin Stock Exchange. For the assessment year 1992-93, the assessee filed a return of income on November 2, 1992. Not satisfied with the account and considering the nature of business and the accounting operation, on February 3, 1995, a proposal was sent to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin, requesting for a special audit under Section 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income-tax approved the audit and issued an order under Section 142(2A) directing the assessee to get his accounts audited by Shri T. N. Radhakrishnan, chartered accountant. The assessment was completed levying a tax of Rs. 7,60,433. The chartered accountant submitted a bill with details to the Commissioner for Rs. 1,38,102 for the audit work done. The Chief Commissioner examined the matter in detail, perused the bill and by exhibit P-l order dated December 11, 1995, 30 per cent, of the bill amount was disallowed and 70 per cent, of the bill amount, namely, Rs. 97,000 was determined under Section 142(20) as expenses and fees of audit under Section 142(2A). The petitioner challenges exhibit P-l order. On going through exhibit P-l order, it can be seen that the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax has applied his mind and 30 per cent, of the bill of the chartered accountant was disallowed and only balance was allowed. Of course, in a particular case where it is found that the bill is arbitrary, etc., this court may set aside or even direct the Commissioner for granting a hearing and then consider the matter. But, in this case, on going through the details of the bill produced by the second respondent-chartered accountant as exhibit R-2(B) and the volume of work done it cannot be stated that it is arbitrary or reconsideration is necessary. Subsequently, there was an agreement on November 9, 1996, with the chartered accountant and the assessee and the bill amount was agreed to be paid in instalments. In such circumstances, no further orders are necessary under article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the original petition is dismissed.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information