MADAN. B. LOKUR, J.

( 1 ) THESE are two writ petitions raising the same issue and question of law. The challenge in both the petitions is to the similar orders dated 14th March, 2006 passed by Respondent No. 2 directing the Petitioners to have special audits conducted under Section 142 (2a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relevant for the assessment year 2003-04.

( 2 ) WE find no merit in any of the writ petitions and, therefore, dismiss them. For convenience, the facts relevant to the WP (C) No. 9538 of 2006 of M/s sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd. are being mentioned.

( 3 ) THE Petitioner is a residuary non-banking company and is engaged in the business of deposit mobilisation. According to the Petitioner, it follows the mercantile system of accounting and maintains regular books of accounts including a cash book, bank book, journal book, general ledger, debtors ledger, creditors ledger, etc. It follows the directions issued by the Reserve Bank of india from time to time and in accordance therewith it maintains a register of deposits, and investment ledger and stock register of securities. It has its accounts audited from time to time and according to the Petitioner neither its business nor the maintenance of statutory records by it has been adversely commented upon.

( 4 ) THE Petitioner filed its return of income on 30th November, 2003 declaring a total income of about Rs. 53 crores for the financial year 2002-2003. This was subsequently revised on 31st March, 2005 and the total income was reduced to about Rs. 51 crores. The return was accompanied by a statutory audit report, tax audit report and statement of accounts.

( 5 ) DURING the course of assessment proceedings, commenced pursuant to a notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act, an order was passed under Section 127 (2)of the Act on 29th July, 2005 whereby jurisdiction over the assessee was transferred from the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in Lucknow to respondent No. 2 in Delhi. This order was challenged by the Petitioner before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. It appears that on 28th May, 2005, the High Court stayed the operation of the order transferring jurisdiction to Delhi but ultimately the writ petition was dismissed on 8th February, 2006 and the interim order vacated.

( 6 ) AS a consequence of the order passed under Section 127 (2) of the Act, jurisdiction over the assessee came to be exercised by Respondent No. 2. Consequently, on 20th February, 2006, Respondent No. 2 issued a notice to the petitioner requiring it to appear before him on 27th February, 2006.

( 7 ) ON 27th February, 2006, the Petitioner filed a letter before Respondent no. 2 in which it was prayed that the order passed by the Lucknow Bench of the allahabad High Court was challenged by the Petitioner before the Supreme Court and as such the assessment proceedings may not be taken up till the Supreme court renders its decision. On the basis of this letter, Respondent No. 2 adjourned further proceedings to 6th March, 2006.

( 8 ) IT appears that on 3rd March, 2006, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by the Petitioner and, therefore, jurisdiction over the petitioner is now firmly with the income tax authorities in Delhi.

( 9 ) ON 6th March, 2006, the scheduled date, the Petitioner appeared before the assessing officer and requested for a fresh hearing in view of the fact that the case has now been transferred to him. On this request, the proceedings were adjourned to 9th March, 2006. On that date, since the Petitioner had not complied with the requirements of answering certain queries that were raised on 6th February, 2006 by the assessing officer in Lucknow, the proceedings were adjourned to 20th March, 2006 when a reply was filed by the Petitioner. In the case of M/s Sahara India (Firm) the proceedings were adjourned to 17th March, 2006.

( 10 ) IN the meanwhile, on 14th March, 2006, the impugned order under section 142 (2a) of the Act was passed by Res