R SATHYA MOORTHY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these writ petitions can be dealt with under a common judgment, since the prayer is one and the same, viz., for a declaration that section 44AB of the Income tax Act, 1961, which imposes audit of accounts of assessees by accountants alone and restraining the other authorised and qualified practitioners as unreasonable, discriminatory and unconstitutional. In all the cases, barring W. P. No. 10765 of 1989, the petitioners are income tax practitioners.

(2.) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 10765 of 1985 is an assessee.It is enough if we refer to W. P. No. 3203 of 1985. THE petitioner herein is an income tax practitioner. He has been so registered with the Commissioner of Income tax and, in the course of the exercise of his profession, he assists assessees in the preparation of accounts, balance sheets, profit and loss accounts, statements and return of income to be filed before the income tax authorities. He has been carrying on his profession since 1976.He is an authorised representative within the meaning of section 288(1) of the Act.

(3.) IN view of the equal treatment of authorised representatives contemplated by section 288(2), there is no justification to single out only chartered accountants and give them favoured treatment as contemplated by section 44AB. The classification is arbitrary and irrational.The petitioner submits that section 139(9) and rule 12A are the provisions dealing with filing of the return of income and completion of an assessment thereon, and the discrimination brought out between chartered accountants on the one hand and other categories of authorised representatives is unjustified.