Case: Esthuri Aswathiah Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore

Up to the assessment yearthe appellant adopted the year ending on June 30 as the " previous year " applicable to him. The assessment for the assessment yearwas accordingly made in respect of the previous year ended on June 30, 1950. For the assessment yearthe assessee filed a return for 21 months commencing on July 1, 1950, and ending on March 31, 1952, and requested theOfficer to accord his sanction to the change of the previous year from an year ending on June 30 to an year ending on March 31. TheOfficer duly sanctioned the change. In the assessment order for the yearhe stated " The return of income filed for this year is for the period between 1st July, 1950, and 31st March, 1952. The permission to change the previous year is granted subject to the condition that the total income in the period of 21 months ending 31st March, 1952, will be assessed to tax at the rate applicable to the total income in the said 21 months. "2. The appellant was apparently happy with this order, and he made no protest before theOfficer. The assessment for the assessment yearwas accordingly made in respect of the income of the previous year consisting of 21 months commencing from July 1, 1950, and ending on March 31, 1952. In his appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and theAppellate Tribunal, the appellant, however, contended that the total income of 21 months should be assessed at the rate applicable to the proportionate income for a period of 12 months. Both the authorities concurrently rejected this contention. On the application of the assessee, the Tribunal referred the following two questions of law for the decision of the High Court of Mysore":(1) Within the meaning of section 2(11)(a) of theAct, whether theOfficer is entitled to have the length of the prevous year as 21 months though the assessee itself applies for such a change?(2) When the length of the assessees previous year is allowed to be 21 months, whether it is obligatory on the part of theOfficer to tax the income for the said period of 21 months at the rate applicable to the proportionate income for a period of 12 months ? "At the hearing of the reference, the second question of law was not pressed. The first question of law was pressed, and it was contended that, according to the scheme of the IndianAct, there cannot be a previous year consisting of more than 12 months, and theOfficer was not competent to constitute a previous year consisting of 21 months under the proviso to clause (i)(a) to section 2(11). The High Court rejected this contention and answered the question in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The assessee now appeals to this court on a certificate granted by the High Court under section 66A(2) of the Indian

Court's reasoning:
We are unable to accept thisA combined reading of the several clauses of section 2(11) shows that the length of a previous year need not necessarily be 12 calendar months. Under section 2(11)(i)(b), the previous year is such period as may be determined by the Central Board of Revenue or such authority as the Board may authorise in this behalf, and the period so determined may be more or less than 12 months. Under section 2(11)(i)(c), the period of the previous year in respect of a newly set up business, profession or vocation may be less than 12 months. In this background, let us consider the meaning of section 2(11)(i)(a). The assessee has the option to choose his accounting year ending on any date within the preceding financial year as his previous year. Once he exercises this option, the meaning of the expression " previous year " as applicable to him is determined, and he cannot exercise this option again " so as to vary the meaning of the expression previous year as then applicable to him except with the consent of theOfficer and upon such conditions as theOfficer may think fit to impose. " If the assessee wants to change the meaning of the previous year as then applicable to him, he must obtain the consent of theOfficer, and theOfficer may accord such consent on proper terms. TheOfficer may refuse to give his consent, but if he does give his consent, he has ample power to impose the condition that the full period from the end of the " previous year " for the preceding years assessment to the end of the new accounting year should be taken as the previous year for the current assessment year. Thus, if the previous year at any given time applicable to the assessee ends on June 30 and he wants to vary it so as to make it end on March 31 next, theOfficer has power to accord sanction to the change on the condition that the previous year would consist of the entire period of 21 months commencing on June 30 of the year up to which his accounts were last made up to March 31 of the year up to which his accounts are newly made up. The condition properly safeguards the interest of the revenue. Had he sanctioned the change on the footing that the previous year of the assessee in relation to the current assessment year would be the period of 12 months from April 1 to March 31, the income of the preceding 9 months from July 1 to March 31 would have escaped taxationis an impossible contention. There cannot be two previous years in respect of the same assessment year. The charge under section 3 for any assessment year is in respect of the income of the previous year. The concept of two previous years in relation to the same assessment year is repugnant to section 3. In Dhandhania Kedia & Co. v. Commissioner ofthis court pointed out that it is a contradiction in terms to speak of six previous years in relation to any specified assessment year. Mr. Srinivasan is not right in submitting that section 25(1) contemplates two previous years. Section 25(1) provides that in case of discontinuance of any business, profession or vocation in any assessment year, theOfficer may in that year make an accelerated assessment in respect of the income of the period between the end of the previous year and the date of such discontinuance, in addition to the useful assessment in respect of the income of the previous year. Section 25(1) contemplates the usual assessment in respect of the income of the previous year and a special and separate assessment in the same assessment year in respect of the income of the broken period between the end of the previous year and the end of the discontinuance; it does not contemplate, as counsel submitted, assessments in the same assessment year in respect of two previousagain is an impossible contention. TheOfficer has no power to vary the rate on which the income of the previous year is to be assessed. The rate of tax is fixed by the Finance Act every year. By section 3, the tax is levied at that rate for an assessment year in respect of the income of the previous year. Once the length of the previous year is fixed and the income of the previous year is determined, that income must be charged at the rate specified in the Finance Act and at no other rate. The order of theOfficer, in substance, permitted the change of the previous year on condition that the previous year in relation to the assessment yearwould consist of the period of 21 months commencing from July 1, 1950, and ending on March 31, 1952. TheOfficer had power to impose this condition. The further condition that the income of the previous year of 21 months would be assessed at the rate applicable to the income for 21 months is redundant. Once the length of the previous year is found to be a period of 21 months, the income of the entire period of 21 months must be considered to be the income of the previous year relevant for the assessment yearand the entire income must be assessed at the rate specified in the relevant Finance Act