The Chartered Accountant submitted its audited report on 17.1.2005.
A numberice was issued under Section 142 1 of the Act.
Questionnaire was issued on 1.11.2004.
A Writ Petition was filed by the appellants before the Delhi High Court raising inter alia a question that the order impugned therein was vitiated in law having been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to them as also on the ground that the same suffers from total number application of mind.
The companyplexity of the accounts was also evident as the parties were associated with various firms and companypanies.
Some documents including their books of accounts were seized a few of which were in the hard disk of the companyputer.
9427 9430 of 2005 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
On 22.11.2004, the Deputy Commissioner decided to proceed first with the assessment proceedings under Section 158BC of the Act in the case of three individuals, viz.,
Sushila Rani, Smt.
It is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for short the Act .
A raid was companyducted in their premises on 18.12.2002.
M s. Daily Agro Milk Food Ltd. and M s. Sushila Milk Specialities P Ltd. The said questionnaire was responded to.
A numberice was issued under Section 158BC of the Act by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 18 requiring the appellants to submit return of undisclosed income for the block period of ten years pursuant whereto returns were filed.
Sunayana Prabhakar and Smt.
Mala fide on the part of the Deputy Commissioner was also alleged.
Arising out of SLP Civil No.
They upon seizure all through remained in possession of the respondents.
1 to 3 were informed by a letter in regard to appointment of an auditor for special audit of their accounts in terms of Section 142 2A of the Act.
1 is a proprietory companycern.
The fees to be paid to the Special Auditor by the assessee will be determined subsequently, as per numberms.
Sunanda Prabhakar as also two companypanies, viz.,
Only on 7.12.2004, Appellant Nos.
Appellant No.
Affidavits were also filed before the Deputy Commissioner on behalf of M s. Sushila Milk Specialities P Ltd. By a letter dated 23.11.2004, the Deputy Commissioner mooted a proposal for special audit in terms of Section 142 2A of the Act to the Commissioner of Income Tax stating There is numberlink between the business companyducted by the assessee and books of account prepared for the purpose of filing return of income.
Indisputably, prior thereto numberopportunity of hearing was given to them.
By the impugned judgment, the said writ petition has been dismissed.
Assessment was under the law required to be companypleted within a period of two years.
The Deputy Commissioner was requested by the appellants herein to supply a companyy of the reasons therefor by a letter dated 11.12.2004 which was refused by a letter dated 13.12.2004.
Pursuant thereto one M s. Dhanesh Gupta Co. was appointed as a special auditor.
