2022 (6) TMI 904

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the assessment year 2002-03, and an intimation under Section 143 (1)(a) of the Act was issued on 27 March 2003, accepting the returned income. The Petitioner's case was taken up for consideration by issuing a notice dated 28 October 2003. The Petitioner responded to the questionnaire and submitted the necessary books of accounts. Respondent No.1 issued further notice on 17 February 2005, for which the Petitioner sought time and filed an interim reply. On 29 March 2005, Respondent No.1 issued a notice under Section 142(2A) of the Act directing it to get its accounts for the assessment year 2002-03 audited through a Special Auditor - Respondent No.3. Being aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner filed the present Petition. 3. In this Pet....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....en a reasonable opportunity of being heard. However, it is not that the requirement of hearing the assessee prior to issuance of the order under Section 142(2A) of the Act is mandated only after the Proviso was inserted. The Proviso has made clear what was already an existing legal position. The Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar and others vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax and ors. (2006) 287 ITR 91 (SC) while dealing with the position and orders passed prior to 1 June 2007 has observed that the requirement of hearing has to be read into the Section 142(2A) of the Act. The decision in the case of Rajesh Kumar was rendered by bench of two learned judges of the Supreme Court on 1 November 2006. When a similar case came up before a....