Dismissing the petition the Court held that directions were neither arbitrary, illegal nor beyond the scope of the provision. The directions did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. In any case, even if two or three queries out of forty five queries were found to be unwarranted, the entire order giving directions could not be set aside treating it to be a nullity. Relied on Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT (2008) 300 ITR 403 (SC) and Rajesh Kumar v. Dy.CIT (2006) 287 ITR 91 (SC) Deepak Agro Foods v. State of Rajasthan (2008) 16 VST 454 (SC)..The court directed that the period during which the petitions remained pending shall be excluded while counting the period prescribed in the proviso to section 142(2C) of the Act.
Dishman Infrastructure Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) 437 ITR 487 / 206 DTR 65/ 323 CTR 39 / 129 taxmann.com 344 (Guj.)(HC)Editorial: SLP is dismissed Dishman Infrastructure Ltd. v . ACIT ( 2022) 285 Taxman 192// 443 ITR 227 (SC)
S. 142(2A) : Inquiry before assessment-Special audit-Natural justice-Search and Seizure-Directions were neither arbitrary, illegal nor beyond the scope of the provision- Period during which the petitions remained pending shall be excluded while counting the period prescribed in the proviso to section 142(2C) of the Act. [S.14A, 142(2C), Art. 226]