9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the assessee should be allowed to change its previous year. 2. Validity of the reasons given by the Income-tax Officer for denying the change of previous year. 3. Consideration of loss of revenue as a valid reason for rejecting the assessee's application. Analysis: The judgment by SUHAS CHANDRA SEN J. dealt with the interpretation of Section 3(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which defines the "previous year." The section allows an assessee to choose a 12-month accounting period, either the financial year or another period with the Income-tax Officer's consent. In this case, the company had been following the year ending on December 31 as its previous year until the assessment year 1982-83. The assessee then sought to change its previous year to the financial year for the assessment year 1983-84, which was allowed. Subsequently, the assessee requested another change to the year ending on June 30, which was denied by the Income-tax Officer citing reasons of revenue loss and prior change of previous year. The petitioner contended that the denial was unlawful, citing a Supreme Court judgment recognizing the possibility of a previous year extending beyond 12 months when changing the accounting period. The court noted that the discretion to allow the change lies with the Income-tax Officer, emphasizing that it must be exercised reasonably. The Income-tax Officer's reasons for refusal were twofold: the recent change in previous year and potential revenue loss if the change was allowed. The Income-tax Officer justified the revenue loss concern by highlighting potential disallowances under section 37(3A) for the assessment year 1985-86. The court considered the timing of the application in relation to the Finance Bill proposals and the company's board resolution for the accounting period change. It concluded that the question was not about mala fide intent but the potential revenue loss. The court upheld the Income-tax Officer's decision, stating that the consideration of revenue loss was material and not arbitrary. The discretionary power to allow the change was deemed valid and not exercised arbitrarily or based on irrelevant considerations. As a result, the writ petition was dismissed, and the interim order was vacated, with no costs awarded. In summary, the judgment emphasized the discretionary power of the Income-tax Officer to permit changes in the previous year, considering factors such as revenue implications and the reasonableness of the request. The court upheld the Income-tax Officer's decision to deny the change based on the potential revenue loss, ruling that the decision was not arbitrary and that the assessee had not provided sufficient justification for the frequent changes in the accounting period.
|
