9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (3) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 30th November, every year. Accordingly, he filed the return for the asst. yr. 1973-74 taking the year ended on 30th November 1972 as his previous year and the return for the asst. yr. 1974-75 taking the year ended 30th November 1973 as his previous year. The ITO was of the view that insofar as salary income was concerned, there could be no other previous year except the financial year ending on 31st March. In this view of the matter, he made the assessment taking the relevant previous year as the years as ended 31st March, 1973 and 31st March, 1974 respectively for the two assessment years under consideration. 3. The assessee appealed to the AAC, and contended that the ITO erred in his decision. The AAC went through the provisions of s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . According to him, the assessee had income only from salary and so there was no question of making up accounts upon any date. He relied on the decision in the cases of CIT vs. V.V.S. Sarma P.N. Dass 1977 CTR (Mad) 72 : (1976) 110 ITR 778 (Mad) and also the decision in the case of Addl. CIT vs. K. Ram Chandra Rao (1981) 21 CTR (AP) 60: (1981) 127 ITR 414 (AP). He also relied on the decision dt. 29th October 1976 of the Tribunal in ITA No. 108/Bom/1976-77, wherein it has been held that an assessee having salary income can have his previous year as the financial year only. 5. Shri. R.K. Khanna, the ld. Representative for the assessee, on the other hand, supported the order of the AAC. He stated that the Tribunal in their order dt. 29th Oc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ach year. In the case of K. Ramachandra Rao, the facts were that a person was deriving income from legal profession and salary. He was appointed as a Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on 21st August, 1968. For the asst. yr. 1969-70, he claimed that he maintains separate accounts in respect of his salary income as a Judge and made up such accounts for the previous year ending on 31st July, 1969 and, therefore, it should be assessed in the asst. yr. 1970-71, and not 1969-70. It was held that the election of the previous year ending 31st July, 1969 by the assessee was quite in accordance with s. 3(1) (b) of the Act. As the assessee made up his accounts on 31st July, 1969, he was entitled to adopt the previous year ending 31st July, 1969 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
