R. M. Lodha, J. - (1.) At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petn. No. 1314 of 2004, Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd. V/s. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 6(3), Mumbai and Ors. on 27th July, 2004 and submitted that since the said writ petition has been admitted wherein the issue is involved whether before passing the order u/s. 142(2A) an opportunity of hearing needs to be given to the assessee or not and as in the present writ petition the said issue is also raised, this writ petition be also admitted.
(2.) We thought that it would be better if we consider this aspect finally at the admission stage. Hence, we heard the matter accordingly.
(3.) The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dt. 11th Nov., 2005, passed by the Asstt. CIT, Range 4(1), Mumbai, whereby he issued direction to the petitioner for a special audit u/s. 142(2A) for the asst. yr. 2003-04. The order is challenged on the following grounds : (i) The Asstt. CIT, Range 4(1) who passed the order giving direction to the petitioner for special audit u/s. 142(2A) for the asst. yr. 2003-04 has no jurisdiction over the petitioner's case. (ii) That no hearing of any nature whatsoever was given to the petitioner prior to passing of the impugned order u/s. 142(2A). The learned counsel relied upon the following judgments : Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. and Anr. V/s. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors., 1999 236 ITR 671 (Cal), West Bengal State Co-operative Bank Ltd. V/s. Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. , Muthoottu Mini Kuries V/s. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. and UP State Handloom Corporation Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. . (iii) That by issuing the direction u/s. 142(2A) for a special audit, the AO has abdicated his duty and the said directions are beyond the scope of Sec. 142(2A) of the IT Act, 1961.;