https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391042 The court upheld the validity of the notice under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, stating that the notice dated 13.09.2019 fulfilled the statutory requirement despite being labeled under Section 142(1). It clarified that a personal hearing was not mandatory under Section 142(2A) and cited precedent to support this. The court found the AO's justifications for ordering a special audit based on objective considerations valid and dismissed allegations of mala fide action. Additionally, the court rejected claims of interpolation of records, ultimately concluding that the special audit order was justified, and the petition was dismissed without costs. en-us Tue, 24 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Jun 2020 14:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391042 The court upheld the validity of the notice under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, stating that the notice dated 13.09.2019 fulfilled the statutory requirement despite being labeled under Section 142(1). It clarified that a personal hearing was not mandatory under Section 142(2A) and cited precedent to support this. The court found the AO's justifications for ordering a special audit based on objective considerations valid and dismissed allegations of mala fide action. Additionally, the court rejected claims of interpolation of records, ultimately concluding that the special audit order was justified, and the petition was dismissed without costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 24 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391042