Supreme Court of India
T.D. VENKATA RAO versus UNION OF INDIA
- Decided
- 8 December 1998
- Judges listed
- S.P. BHARUCHA
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 418 · 1998 INSC 466
- Also cited as
- (1999) 8 SCC 455
- AIR 1999 SC 2242
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
BHARUCHA, J. The appellant is not represented, though we have waited. from some time. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to cost~.
p. 419, margin B
Restored .
p. 419, margin B
. ,
p. 419, margin B
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant challenged the validity of Section 44 (AB) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 in so far as it required every person carrying on business, if his total sales, turnover or gross receipts exceeded Rs. 40 lacs, and every person carrying on a profession, if his gross receipts exceeded Rs. 10 lacs, in any previous year "to get his accounts of such previous year audited by an accountant before the specified date .... ". The Explanation to the Section defines "Accountant" for its purpose to have the same meaning as in the Explanation below Section 288(2). Section 288 deals with authorised representatives. Sub-section (2) clause (4) refers to an Accountant. The explanation says that in that Section "Accountant" means a Chartered Accountant within the meaning of the Chartered Accountancy Act and includes persons entitled to be appointed to act as auditors of companies in a particular State by reasons of the provisions of Section 226(2) of the Companies Act
p. 419, margin C
The challenge is on behalf of the Income Tax Practitioners. It is submitted that they are entitled to be authorised representatives on behalf of the assessees and that excluding them for the purpose of auditing accounts as aforestated violates Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. The High Court in the order under challenge, as other High Courts had done, rejected the challenge and, in our view, rightly so.
p. 419, margin E
Chartered Accountants, by reason of their training have special aptitude in the matter of audits. It is reasonable that they, who form a class by themselves, should be required to audit the accounts of businesses whose income exceeds Rs. 40 lacs and professionals whose income exceeds Rs. 10 lacs in any given year. There is no material on record, and indeed, in our view, there cannot lie, .that an Income Tax Practitioner has the same expertise as · Chartered Accou1. mts in the matter of Accounts. For the same reasons, the challenge under Article 19 must fail, and it must be pointed out that these Income Tax Practitioners are still entitled to be authorised representatives of asses sees.
pp. 419–420, margin G
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed, with costs. S.V.K. Appeal dismissed.
p. 420, margin A