Special audit under s.142(2A) upheld after searches and seizures, limited to two assessment years; challenge dismissed

HC upheld the validity of an order directing a special audit under s.142(2A) after searches and seizure of voluminous business records. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner, having examined the accounts, found them complex and necessary for Revenue interests, limited the special audit to two assessment years. The court found no arbitrary exercise of power and rejected the petitioner's challenge, dismissing the petition.

---

---

Issues involved: Validity of order appointing special auditor u/s 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act.

Summary:
The High Court of Allahabad considered a writ petition filed by a company challenging the appointment of a special auditor by the Income-tax Department u/s 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act. The company maintained separate books of account at various branches and its premises were searched in December 1975. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner recommended a special audit due to the complex nature of the accounts, which was approved by the Commissioner of Income-tax. The company contested the validity of the order, arguing that there was no material to justify the special audit.

The Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Act, emphasizing that the power to direct a special audit should be based on objective assessment of the complexity of accounts. The term "complexity" was discussed, highlighting the need for a thorough understanding before ordering a special audit. The Central Board of Direct Taxes issued guidelines for selecting cases for special audit under section 142(2A), specifying criteria for companies and non-company assessees.

In this case, the Court noted that the accounts of the company were found to be complex after scrutiny by the authorities, justifying the need for a special audit. The Commissioner of Income-tax had accepted the recommendation based on the nature of the account books. The Court concluded that there was no arbitrary exercise of power and dismissed the petition, ordering the petitioner to pay costs. The advocate's fee was assessed at Rs. 500.

In conclusion, the Court upheld the validity of the order appointing the special auditor under section 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing the importance of objective assessment in determining the need for a special audit based on the complexity of accounts.

---