Tribunal held that the services of the expert in the field of accounts cannot be denied to the AO. At the same time he should have reasonable satisfaction to be brought out on record about the nature and complexity of the accounts. The AO had not given any finding about the nature and complexity of accounts, volume of accounts, multiplicity of transactions, or the specialised nature of business activity of the assessee. The assessee had submitted books of account translated in English and the reasons given by the AO, viz, that details had not been given, the intricate the nature of the seized material, that the true picture of undisclosed income could not be worked out within a span of a week, could not make any valid ground for referring a case to special audit. Even when the books of account had not been called for satisfaction as to the nature and complexity of accounts of the assessee is a sine qua non for directing the assessee to get the accounts audited by an accountant as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288 . As there was no speaking order and giving no reason for arriving at the conclusion having regard to the nature and complexity of the accounts the order under section 142(2A) was bad in law. Since the direction for special audit was without proper jurisdiction the time so taken could not be counted and the period did not get extended. Since the order was passed on July 28, 2010, it was time barred. Therefore the order passed by the Assessing Officer was therefore, bad in law. ( AY.2005 -06 to 2008 -09)