https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14185 The dominant issue was whether a direction for special audit under s. 142(2A) could be issued without first examining the records and without affording a hearing. The HC held that "complexity of accounts" is a condition precedent and cannot be presumed before production and scrutiny of accounts; where clarification could be sought under s. 142(1), referral to a chartered accountant is unwarranted. The court further held that s. 142(2A) requires "sufficient reasons," which necessarily implies observance of natural justice, especially given the finality of the authority's decision on remuneration. The impugned special-audit direction was set aside, with liberty to the Assessing Officer to hear the assessee and take a fresh decision in accordance with law. en-us Tue, 02 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Jan 2026 16:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14185 The dominant issue was whether a direction for special audit under s. 142(2A) could be issued without first examining the records and without affording a hearing. The HC held that "complexity of accounts" is a condition precedent and cannot be presumed before production and scrutiny of accounts; where clarification could be sought under s. 142(1), referral to a chartered accountant is unwarranted. The court further held that s. 142(2A) requires "sufficient reasons," which necessarily implies observance of natural justice, especially given the finality of the authority's decision on remuneration. The impugned special-audit direction was set aside, with liberty to the Assessing Officer to hear the assessee and take a fresh decision in accordance with law. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 02 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14185