VINODKUMAR AND COMPANY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE validity of the provisions of Sections 271B, 44AB, 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, have been assailed in these petitions. THE petitioners are aggrieved by fixing different dates in obtaining the audit report for the companies vis-a-vis non-companies. It is submitted that the persons whose accounts are to be audited constitute one group and liability under Section 44AB have been cast where sales, turnover or bills, receipts exceeds rupees 40 lakhs in the previous year. It is submitted that all the assessees which fall in that category constitute one category and there cannot be a further discrimination regarding different dates in furnishing the return.

(2.) THE Explanation to Section 44AB defines the specific dates in relation to the accounts of the previous year or years relating to the assessment year means the date of expiry of four months from the end of the previous year or, where there is more than one previous year, from the end of the previous year which expired last before the commencement of the assessment year, or June 30 of the assessment year, whichever is later. This definition was amended by the Finance Act of 1988 and now a "specified date" in relation to the accounts of the previous year for companies has been mentioned as December 31, and in other cases October 31 of the assessment year. This date of December 31, was further changed to November 30, by the Finance Act of 1994. Section 139(1) prescribes the time limit for filing return which is to be filed on the due date. Explanation 1 has defined "due date" in the case of a company as December 31, of the assessment year which has now been changed to November 30. In the case of assessees other than a company where the accounts are required to be audited the return is to be filed by October 31. Where the assessee is carrying on business or profession the return has to be filed by August 30, and in other cases, the last date for furnishing return is June 30.

(3.) THE entire argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is on the basis that when the company and other assessees constitute one class, providing different dates for obtaining report or submitting the return is discriminatory and violative of article 14 of the Constitution.