The Department has challenged the orders for reference to arbitration passed by the Micro and Small Enterprise Facilitation Council an authority established under section 20 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to deal with claims raised in respect of the fee payable in terms of section 142(2D) of the 1961 Act by special auditor firm engaged under section 142(2A) of the 1961 Act and which was registered as micro enterprise of the Income-tax Act, allowing the petitions, that the invocation of the provisions of the 2006 Act in respect of special audit remuneration under section 142(2D) of the 1961 Act was not tenable and completely misplaced. The 2006 Act had no applicability to the nature of the assignment which had been given to the chartered accountant firm. The determination of the remuneration was solely the prerogative of the Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner and would not be liable to be called into question either in a civil court or in a commercial suit or civil suit as one of recovery of money. The Micro and Small Enterprise Facilitation Council lacked jurisdiction and had even failed to consider as to whether the 2006 Act would itself was applicable or not. Therefore, the references by the Micro and Small Enterprise Facilitation Council, of the claims raised by the chartered accountant firm to arbitration were not sustainable and accordingly set aside.
PCIT v. Micro and Small Enterprise Facilitation Council (2023)456 ITR 207/152 taxmann.com 177 / 333 CTR 572(Delhi)(HC)
S. 142(2A) : Inquiry before assessment-Special audit-Remuneration of special auditor to be determined by competent authorities of department-Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council has no jurisdiction to refer to arbitration though Chartered Accountant firm registered as micro enterprise. [S. 142(2D), Rule 14B, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, S. 2(d), 15,18(3), 20, 24, Art. 226]