JUDGMENT 1. Compliance with the office objection is dispensed with. Office to register the appeal as regular appeal. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 3. The brief facts and circumstances in which this appeal has arisen are that a search took place on November 20, 1997, and notice under section 158BC was issued on September 7, 1998. In compliance with which, the assessee submitted a return on October 20, 1998, declaring undisclosed income of Rs. 2,44,000 for the block period. Only one day before the period for completing the block assessment was expiring, the Assessing Officer directed the assessee to have the accounts subjected to special audit in terms of section 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Thus, by dint of time, having the accounts subjected to special audit, the limitation for completing the block period was sought to be extended and the assessment order was ultimately passed on May 24, 2000, by excluding the extended period for getting the special audit conducted of the books of account of the assessee. 4. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the record of proceedings and material on record has come to the conclusion that reference to the special audit under section 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act in the circumstances was not for the purpose for which the provision was enacted but merely for getting the extended period for completing assessment, which is not permissible under law. On the basis of this finding, the reference to the special audit was held to be illegal and consequently, the assessment order was held to be barred by time. There is no dispute about it that if the period reckoned for special audit which was directed to be conducted a day before the expiry of period of completing the block assessment, is not taken into account, the assessment order is clearly barred by time. The Tribunal found that merely because accounts and documents were voluminous, it is not taken to assume complexity so as to invoke the provisions of section 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act as a matter of course. The Tribunal found that merely because accounts and documents were voluminous, it is not taken to assume complexity so as to invoke the provisions of section 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act as a matter of course. The Tribunal also noticed that the Assessing Officer has not merely referred the accounts to be audited under special audit by an auditor named by him, but he has directed the special auditor to prepare the books of account in the form of cash book, ledger, on the basis of documents/papers seized during the course of search as per his directions. The auditor was also required to prepare trading, profit and loss account, which were recorded in the regular books of account and further to determine the undisclosed income of the block period. 5. Apparently the order was for preparing fresh books rather than to conduct a special audit. This was on the face of it beyond the scope of provisions of section 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act. No authority has been given to the Assessing Officer to direct the preparation of fresh books by referring the matter to an auditor under special audit. Audit is for the purpose of satisfying one about authenticity and credibility of accounts prepared by the assessee but not for preparing new account books as per directions of Assessing Officers. Apparently, the Tribunal found that it was abuse of process by the Assessing Officer. The findings given by the Tribunal are findings of fact based upon the relevant material. 6. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. *******