https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752592 The HC upheld the AO's order directing special audit under section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act despite the petitioner-Company's challenge. The court found that discrepancies in seized documents and digital devices, including suspicious transactions spread over fourteen pages, provided sufficient material for the AO to form a prima facie opinion for special audit. While acknowledging that five days' notice was insufficient and the AO passed the order without considering objections, the court ruled no serious prejudice occurred. The AO's satisfaction under section 142(2A) is not subject to judicial scrutiny unless mala fide intention is demonstrated. The court extended the auditor's report submission deadline by three months but otherwise dismissed the petition. en-us Wed, 24 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 May 2024 06:54:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752592 The HC upheld the AO's order directing special audit under section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act despite the petitioner-Company's challenge. The court found that discrepancies in seized documents and digital devices, including suspicious transactions spread over fourteen pages, provided sufficient material for the AO to form a prima facie opinion for special audit. While acknowledging that five days' notice was insufficient and the AO passed the order without considering objections, the court ruled no serious prejudice occurred. The AO's satisfaction under section 142(2A) is not subject to judicial scrutiny unless mala fide intention is demonstrated. The court extended the auditor's report submission deadline by three months but otherwise dismissed the petition. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 24 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752592