https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282241 The court upheld the Assessing Officer's decision to appoint a Special Auditor under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, finding that the AO had provided adequate justification based on the complexity of the accounts and volume of transactions. The court dismissed the petitioner's argument that the special audit was intended to extend the assessment period, emphasizing that its purpose was to ensure accurate taxable income determination. The petition was dismissed, affirming the legality of the special audit appointment and noting the petitioner's lack of cooperation during assessment proceedings. en-us Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Jul 2019 10:11:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282241 The court upheld the Assessing Officer's decision to appoint a Special Auditor under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, finding that the AO had provided adequate justification based on the complexity of the accounts and volume of transactions. The court dismissed the petitioner's argument that the special audit was intended to extend the assessment period, emphasizing that its purpose was to ensure accurate taxable income determination. The petition was dismissed, affirming the legality of the special audit appointment and noting the petitioner's lack of cooperation during assessment proceedings. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282241