TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case [ 2006 (11) TMI 135 - SUPREME COURT ], culminated into the proviso being added that an adequate opportunity be granted. Admittedly, even according to the petitioner, adequate opportunity has been given. That only presupposes, that the objections as raised by the petitioner with regard to the notice issued, have been duly considered by the respondents. It is only after such application of mind, the order has been passed. The material on record would clearly indicate that substantial opportunity has been given as well as the reply to objections filed by the petitioner. Therefore, to contend that none of them has been considered by the respondents, in our considered view, may run opposite to the record produced before us. The materi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontended that whenever an order of special audit is to be made by the respondents, the same should be through a speaking order which is lacking in the instant case. That there is no such speaking order passed by the respondents with regard to compliance of the provisions of the law. Hence, the action of the respondents is liable to be set aside. In support of his case, he relies on the judgments of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax reported in 287 ITR Page 91 = [2006] 157 Taxman 168 (SC) . He further places reliance on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-I and another reported in (2008) 14 SCC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment would be based upon the findings of the special auditor subject of course to its acceptance by the Assessing Officer. Even at that stage the assessee cannot put forward a case that power under section 142(2A) of the Act had wrongly been exercised and he has unnecessarily been saddled with a heavy expenditure. An appeal against the order of assessment, as noticed hereinbefore, would not serve any real purpose as the appellate authority would not go into such a question since the direction issued under section 142(2A) of the Act is not an appellate order. As a consequence whereof, the proviso to Section 142(2A) of the Act was added by the Finance Act, 2007 (22 of 2007) w.e.f. 01.06.2007, which provided as follows:- Provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being contended, is that when an order is passed under Section 142(2A) of the Act, necessary reasons have to follow which will enable the petitioner to know as to the circumstances on which the order was passed. On considering the same, we do not deem it appropriate to accept the contention. What was provided by the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar s case, culminated into the proviso being added that an adequate opportunity be granted. Admittedly, even according to the petitioner, adequate opportunity has been given. That only presupposes, that the objections as raised by the petitioner with regard to the notice issued, have been duly considered by the respondents. It is only after such application of mind, the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
