MOHAN TRADING COMPANY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Order shall also dispose of Misc. Petitions Nos. 1072/85, 1261/85, 1284/85, 1299/85, 1384/85, 1447/85, 1566/85, 1610/85, 1692/85, 1655/85, 1666/85, 1729/85, 1763/85, 1777/85, 1800/85, 1817/85, 1822/85, 1908/85, 2072/85 and 2260/85.

(2.) BY these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenge is made to the constitutional validity of ss. 44AB and 27 IB of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act"), introduced in the Act by Section 11 of the Finance Act, 1984 (Act No. 11 of 1984), rule 6G in Chapter CCC introduced in the I.T. Rules, 1962 (hereinafter called "the Rules"), and Forms Nos. 3CB, 3CC, 3CD and 3CE introduced in Appendix II.of the said Rules. Section 44AB provides for compulsory audit of the accounts of the class of assessees specified therein and Section 27 IB provides the penalty for non-compliance of Section 44AB. Rule 6G prescribes the manner in which the report of the audit of accounts is required to be furnished under Section 44AB and Forms Nos. 3CB to 3CE prescribe the particulars to be furnished in that connection. The amendments were made in the Act and the Rules with effect from April 1, 1985, and apply from the assessment year 1985-86 corresponding to the relevant accounting year of the assessee.

(3.) FOR the petitioners, the main argument on behalf of the category of businessmen was addressed by Shri B. L. Nema and Shri H. S. Shrivas-tava, while on behalf of the professionals, the main argument was by Shri Y., S. Dharmadhikari. Sarvashree V. S. Dabir, R, P. Verma, D. C. Bhamore, B. C. Jain and H. C. Kohli adopted their arguments. On behalf of the respondents, Shri R. Krishnamurthy, Advocate-General of Tamil Nadu, asserted that no invalidity in the impugned provisions had been shown. Shri R. K. Sanghi, on behalf of the interveners, adopted the arguments of the learned Advocate-General.