Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2004 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (10) TMI 22 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTHeld that before passing the order under section 142(2A) any SCN or any opportunity of hearing is not required to be given to the petitioner. It may be mentioned here that the guidelines framed by the CBDT as contained in Instruction No. 1076 dated July 12, 1977, empower the ITO under sub-clause (vii) of clause (2) for an audit under section 142(2A) where he has any other information necessitating special audit. These guidelines have been complied with by the assessing authority. There is no question of any addition of the ground on the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents inasmuch as we have taken into consideration the original proposal and the order of approval in this regard. So far as the arguments that the remuneration of the special auditor is excessive, it may be mentioned here that looking to the nature of the activities carried on by the petitioner and the voluminous documents and the books of the number of branches maintained by it, which are required to be gone into by the special auditor, the amount of Rs. 5,00,000 fixed as remuneration for the special auditor cannot be said to be excessive or unjustified
|