BHAGWATI PRASAD, J. - (1.) THE petitioners in the present writ petition are partnership firms. These firms were subjected to procedure of search and seizure. After such seizure, while mechanism provided in the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was in process to determine the tax liability, cases were transferred from Delhi to Kota. The petitioners feel that order of transfer of the cases from Delhi to Kota was without jurisdiction, illegal and void. Still, the petitioners have not chosen to impugn the order of transfer.
(2.) A notice under S. 158BC of the Act was issued to the petitioners namely Ispat Traders and Shivchand & Brothers on 28th Sept., 2001. The opportunity provided in this notice was less than statutory period. Another notice was issued in respect of aforesaid firms afresh on 28th Jan., 2002, requiring these firms to file the return of block period. These firms filed the return of undisclosed income for the block period in response to the aforesaid notices on 22nd March, 2002. Notice was issued to the third petitioner on 12th March, 2002. The third petitioner also filed return in response to the notice. While all the aforesaid proceedings were continuing, a direction under S. 142(2A) of the Act was issued by the AO directing the petitioners to get a special audit done of accounts on 22nd April, 2002. The petitioners claimed that such direction was issued without recording his satisfaction and without framing his opinion in respect of nature and complexity of accounts. The petitioners claim that books of account of all the aforesaid firms were seized on 7th April, 2000, the date of search. During this entire period, no whisper of complexity in the account of books was ever raised. Such contingency is not reflected in various notices issued and the questionnaire supplied to the petitioner. The AO was required to complete the assessment on or before 30th April, 2002, as that was the statutory time-limit.
(3.) IT is claimed by the petitioners that on 10th/11th April, 2002, the CIT came to Kota along with one chartered accountant, Mr. Goyal. He held his camp office in Income-tax office at Kota. The petitioners were called for discussions and in the presence of Mr. Goyal, chartered accountant discussions took place. After discussion, Mr. Goyal advised the petitioners as to why did they not go to the Settlement Commission. This could have made the AO free from this time-barring matter. It is also urged that CIT, Jaipur discussed the matter with the AO. It is claimed by the petitioners that it was at that point of time, certain directions were issued by the CIT for taking appropriate measures under S. 142(2A) of the Act. The petitioners claim that they came to know that the AO would be issuing directions under S. 142(2A). Consequently, the petitioners claim that they received directions under S. 142(2A). The propriety and legality of these directions is being challenged by the petitioners. The petitioners have been directed to get their accounts audited by Ms. Maya Agrawal, FCA of M/s Pramod & Associates, Mahavir Nagar, Kota. The petitioners claim that she appears to be an associate of Mr. Goyal who came from Jaipur along with CIT.;