What are books of account?
In a recent case, the Madras High Court concluded that P&L account
and balance-sheet are not books of account as contemplated under the
I-T Act.
T. C. A. Ramanujam
Computation of business income under the income-tax law has to be
made on the basis of `books of account'. This law has been in
operation since 1992, but surprisingly there was no definition of
the term " till 2001. Finance Act, 2001 introduced the definition
through Section 2(12A). The definition, which took effect from June
1, 2001, reads thus:
"Books or books of account includes ledgers, day-books, cash books,
account-books and other books, whether kept in the written form or
as print-outs of data stored in floppy, disc, tape or any other form
of electro-magnetic data storage device". This is an inclusive
definition.
The Memorandum explaining the amendment, mentions that the passing
of the Information Technology Act, 2000 necessitated the insertion
of this definition in the I-T Act, 1961. A new Section 2 (22AA) was
also brought in to define "document", as including electronic record
as defined in Section 2(1)(t).
Books of account are prescribed by Rule 6F of the I-T Act. The
proviso to this Rule grants exemption from the requirement of
maintenance of books of account if the gross receipts from the
profession do not exceed Rs 60,000. Section 44AA makes it obligatory
for every person carrying on business or profession to maintain
books of account if the income, turnover or gross receipts exceeded
the prescribed limits. Failure without reasonable cause to maintain
books may attract penalty under Section 271A read with 273B.
P&L account
Since the definition is inclusive and not exhaustive, the question
of what constitutes books of account arises. If a profit and loss
(P&L) account is maintained and credits are found in such an
account, can we consider the same to be books of account? This is an
interesting issue and not merely academic. It was taken up for
detailed consideration by the Madras High Court in CIT vs Taj
Borewells (291 ITR 232 Madras).
Taj Borewells did not maintain books of account since the gross
receipts were below Rs 5 lakh. The partners of the firm had brought
in Rs 5,25,00 as investments. The assessing officer (AO) did not
accept the claim about the investment by partners. He concluded that
the amount represented the undisclosed income of the firm and added
the same under Section 68 of the I-T Act.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) annulled the addition and
the department took up the matter in appeal before the Madras High
Court. .
The Madras High Court quoted with approval the definition given in
Ramanatha Iyer's Advanced Law Lexicon. The definition in the Lexicon
appears wider than the in the tax law. A book containing a monetary
transaction, according to the Lexicon, would attract the definition
of books of accounts under the Indian Evidence Act.
Striking features
The High Court observed that books of account will mean any book
which formed an integral part of a system of book keeping employed
in any particular business and included the ledger and the books of
original entry. After explaining the object behind the making of a
P&L account, the court observed that the balance-sheet listing the
assets and liabilities and equity accounts of the company is
prepared "as on" a particular day and the accounts reflected the
balances that existed at the close of business on that day. The
court took note of earlier precedents on the subject and held:
"We can safely conclude that the profit and loss account and the
balance-sheet are not books of account as contemplated under the
provisions of the Act."
The court referred to three striking features in this case:
Since there are no books of accounts, there can be no credits in
such books;
It is the first year of assessment of the assessee;
The Explanation offered by the assessee firm was not rejected and
only the explanation offered by the partners was.
Hence, the High Court concluded that it was not a fit case for
making addition under Section 68 of the Act. The judgment will have
far-reaching ramifications both under tax law and company law.
(The author is a former Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax.)