Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

" But it is for the Income-tax Officer, who is the assessing officer, to be dissatisfied with the method of accounting regularly adopted by the assessee. If he' found no difficulty in assessing the income, profits and gains from the method of accounting regularly adopted by the assessee, then it is not for any other authority to come to a different conclusion. It may be that if an opinion is formed by the Income-tax Officer that opinion may be subject to an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Tribunal; but in the first instance an opinion has to be formed by the Income-tax Officer as required by the proviso." While we agree that, in the first instance, the Income-tax Officer as the first assessing officer has to form an opinion about the applicability of the proviso to s. 13, we do not agree that it is not open to any other authority, which is lawfully in seizin of the order of assessment of which the method of accounting under s. 13 is only a part, to come to a different conclusion with regard to the applicability of the proviso. Let us examine this point a little more closely. The Income-tax Officer may proceed in one of three ways-(1) he may fail to apply his mind to the statutory duty imposed on him by s. 13 and its proviso and may accept the assessee's method of accounting without at all considering if (a) the method was regularly employed and (b) if the income, profits and gains of the assessee can be properly deduced therefrom; (2) he may apply his mind and decide in favour of the assessee that the method is both regular and acceptable (in the sense that income, profits and gains can be properly deduced therefrom) ; or (3) he may decide against the assessee and hold that the method is either not regularly employed or is unacceptable. In the first case, there is a, failure to perform a statutory duty and it has not been seriously disputed that the appellate authority can direct the Income-tax Officer to perform that duty. This is supported by high authority to which we shall presently refer. In the third case, it is conceded that the appellate authority can interfere and set aside the opinion or determination of the Income-tax Officer, and in doing so the appellate authority must form his opinion if the method of accounting is proper and acceptable. The dispute or divergence of opinion relates only to the second case and to a part of it only, because it is not disputed that the finding as to whether the method of accounting is regularly employed or not is an objective determination which the appellate authority can revise. Both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal have wide powers to go into questions of fact and law, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under s. 31(3) and the Appellate Tribunal under s. 33(4). Even the Commissioner can revise an order of the Income-tax Officer under s. 33B in certain circumstances stated therein. We see no justification for holding that these powers, so widely expressed by the statute, become ineffective in one particular case only, namely, when the determination or opinion is in favour of the assessee as respects the propriety of the method of accounting. It is true that the Revenue has no right of appeal under s. 30, but hat is not a decisive circumstance. The assessee can 90 make any order of assessment by the Income-tax Officer final by not appealing therefrom-whether the order is based on a subjective or objective determination. The point is not what happens when there is no appeal ; but the point is when the appellate authority is lawfully in seizin of the matter, what powers it can exercise.

" Whether in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Officer was entitled to compute the income, profits and gains of the assessees upon the basis of the printed copy of the profit and loss account sent with the letter of the assessees of July 18, 1931, without regard to any under- valuation of the stock which may have been or may be proved to have been made."

The High Court was of opinion that the covering letter formed part of the method of accounting employed by the assessees within the meaning of s. 13 of the Act and that the Income-tax Officer was not entitled to split up the method of accounting and to regard the profit and loss account apart from the covering letter; that the Income-tax Officer had only accepted a portion of the method, without taking the method as a whole, which he was not entitled to do. It, therefore held that the matter was still at large for the proper decision of the Income-tax Officer and accordingly answered the amended question in the negative. The Commissioner of Income-tax then carried an appeal to the Privy Council and their Lordships found themselves unable to agree with the view of the High Court as to the meaning of s. 13 of the Act and they were of the opinion that the section related to a method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee for his own purpose and did not relate to a method of making up the statutory return for assessment to income-tax. Secondly, the section clearly made such a method of accounting a compulsory basis of computation unless in the opinion of the Income-tax Officer the income, profits and gains cannot properly be deduced therefrom. The duty of the Income-tax Officer was to determine whether it was possible to deduce the true profits from the account and the judgment of the Income-tax Officer under the proviso must be properly exercised. Their Lordships laid it down that it is the duty of the Income-tax Officer where there is a method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee not to prima facie, accept the profits and gains shown by the assessee but to consider whether the income, profits and gains can properly be deduced therefrom and to proceed according to his judgment on the question. On the facts of the case before them their Lordships were of the opinion that the Income-tax Officer acted on the same view as that expressed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and did not perform the duty above stated. In so far as the facts showed that the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessees did not show the true income, profits or gains, the question was further amended by them as follows:

This case discards the view that it is prima facie duty of the Income-tax Officer concerned to accept the profits shown by the assessee's accounts where there is a method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee and it lays down that it is his duty where there is such a method of accounting to consider whether the income, profits and gains can be properly deduced therefrom. It is incumbent on the Income-tax Officer to come to a determination on that question and if he forms the opinion that the method of accounting is such that the income, profits and gains of the assessee cannot properly be deduced therefrom he is bound to reject such method of accounting and make a computation upon such basis and in such manner as he may determine. The Income-tax Officer has to apply his mind to this aspect of the question and come to his own determination in that behalf and if he does not do so and merely accepts the profits shown by the accounts even though in fact the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee does riot show the true income, profits and gains, he is in error and his action in thus accepting the method of accounting is liable to be set aside at the instance of the higher Tribunal. This leaves open however the question whether if the higher Tribunal comes to that conclusion, it will be open to the higher Tribunal to substitute its opinion for that of the Income-tax Officer concerned and proceed to assess the assessees applying the proviso to s. 13 of the Act. Their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case before them did not do anything of the kind and observed that it would be then for the Income-tax Officer himself to proceed to the proper discharge of his duty under s. 13 of the Act in the light of the opinion expressed in their judgment. They did not send back the case either to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay or to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax but after having answered the amended question in the negative simply stated that the Income-tax Officer would doubtless proceed to reach a proper decision in behalf of the applicability of the proviso to s. 13 of the Act having regard to his experience in the preceding years of assessment. They neither left that duty to be performed by the Commissioner of Income-tax nor by the Assistant Commis- sioner of Income-tax but referred the performance of that duty to the proper authority who was the Income-tax Officer who alone was invested with the duty of performing it under the terms of the proviso to s. 13 of the Act.

Turning then to the provisions of s. 13 itself, one finds that the main provision thereof enacts the rule that income, profits and gains shall be computed for the purpose of ss. 10 and 12 in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. If the matter stood there the imperative character of this provision would entail upon the Income-tax Officer and upon all the income- tax authorities in the hierarchy to accept that method of accounting for the computation of income, profits and gains of the assessee for the purpose of ss. 10 and 12 of the Act. This method of accounting though regularly employed by the assessee is however not invested with a sacrosanct character and is subject to the proviso enacted in s. 13 and it is that if no method of accounting has been regularly employed or if the method employed is such that in the opinion of the Income-tax Officer the income, profits and gains cannot properly be deduced therefrom, then the computation shall be made upon such basis and in such manner as the Income-tax Officer may determine. Two conditions are thus attached to the rejection of the method of accounting regular employed by the assessee and they are expressed in different phraseology : (i) if no method of accounting has been. regularly employed; and (ii) if the method employed is such that in the opinion of the Income-tax Officer the income, profits and gains cannot properly be deduced therefrom. It is to be noted that these two conditions are couched in quite different terms. In the case of the first condition, the mere fact of no method of accounting having been regularly employed is enough to bring the proviso into operation but in the case of the second condition the Income-tax Officer has to form an opinion that the method of accounting is such that the income, profits and gains cannot properly be deduced therefrom before the proviso can ever come into operation. The determination of the Income-tax Officer concerned to that effect is the condition of the rejection by him of the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee and unless and until he comes to that conclusion he cannot reject the same and compute the income, profits and gains of the assessee upon such basis and in such manner as he may determine. The difference in the language of these two conditions is advisedly adopted by the Legislature. The fact that no method of accounting has been regularly employed by the assessee would be obvious to any Income-tax Officer merely on a perusal of the statement of account furnished b the assessee and would not require any mental process which can be properly described as a determination. The mental process involved, however, in the case of the second condition is of a much more elaborate character and the Income-tax Officer has to apply his mind to the question whether even though the method of accounting has been regularly employed by the assessee, such income, profits and gains cannot properly be deduced therefrom. Here the Income-tax Officer concerned has to form a definite opinion on the question and if he comes to the conclusion that the income, profits and 'gains of the assessee cannot properly be deduced from the method of accounting regularly employed by him the proviso at once comes into operation. He is entitled to reject assessee and compute the income, profits and gains of the assessee upon such basis and in such manner as he may determine. This is not the mental process of the nature required for the fulfilment of the first condition. It is the application of mind to the question whether income, profits and gains of the assessee can be properly deduced from the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee and the Income-tax Officer has to come to the conclusion that it cannot be so done. This determination is under the terms of the proviso itself a determination of the Income-tax Officer himself and of no other authority in the hierarchy of the Income-tax Officers. It may be noted that the term" Income-tax Officer" has been defined in s. 2(7) of the Act as distinct from the term "Appellate Assistant Commissioner" defined in s. 2(3) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner are separate entities each with a jurisdiction of its own and the one cannot by any chance be interpreted to mean the other. If, therefore, the proviso to s. 13 of the Act talks of the Income-tax Officer, it is the Income-tax Officer alone as defined in s. 2(7) of the Act and not the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as defined in s. 2(3) of the Act or any other officer in the hierarchy of Income-tax Officers. Such an interpretation would involve the deletion not only of the term "Income-tax Officer" from the proviso to s. 13 but also the absolute negation of the expression "in the opinion' of the Income- tax Officer" mentioned therein. I for one cannot ascribe to the Legislature any negligence or oversight nor can I impute to it any intention to use these words as though they were superfluous or redundant. The words used by the Legislature must be given their full effect and significance and the only way in which these words can be construed is to ascribe to the Legislature the intention to make the determination by the lncome-tax Officer a condition of the proviso being brought into operation, with the necessary consequences of the rejection of the method of accounting regularly basis and in such manner as the Income-tax Officer himself may determine.