I am a registered income-tax practitioner under s.288(2). Can I sign a tax audit report?
No. Being an authorised representative under s.288(2) carries no right to conduct the compulsory audit under s.44AB. The Court gave one reason: chartered accountants, by reason of their training, have a special aptitude in the matter of audits and form a class by themselves, so it is reasonable to require the audit to be done by them; the Article 19 challenge failed "for the same reasons", and the practitioners remain entitled to act as authorised representatives.
Decided by the Supreme Court (S.P. Bharucha and V.N. Khare, JJ (judgment delivered by Bharucha J)) on 1998-12-08, reported as (1999) 237 ITR 315 (SC); 103 Taxman 621; 153 CTR 203; AIR 1999 SC 2242; (1999) 9 SCC 134; Civil Appeal No. 2824 of 1992. It bears on section 44AB, section 288(2), section Constitution Art. 14, section Constitution Art. 19 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Assessment & Scrutiny matters.
It settles who may sign a s.44AB report and disposes of the recurring constitutional attack on the chartered accountant monopoly, so a practitioner considering signing one should read the answer as final. The decision is equally the authority for the other half of the point: preparing returns, advising and appearing before the authorities as an authorised representative under s.288 remain open, and what was denied was only entry into the audit field.
Binding on every court and authority in India.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Section 44AB required every person carrying on business whose sales, turnover or gross receipts exceeded Rs 40 lakh, and every person carrying on a profession whose gross receipts exceeded Rs 10 lakh, to get the accounts of that year audited by an 'accountant'. The Explanation to s.44AB gives that word the meaning it bears in the Explanation below s.288(2) — a chartered accountant within the meaning of the Chartered Accountants Act, together with persons entitled to act as auditors of companies in a particular State under s.226(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. Income-tax practitioners, who are entitled to act as authorised representatives under s.288, challenged the validity of s.44AB on the ground that their exclusion from this audit work violated Articles 14 and 19. The High Court rejected the challenge, as other High Courts had done, and they appealed. The appeal was first dismissed for want of appearance and then restored and heard.
The appeal was dismissed with costs. Chartered accountants, by reason of their training, have a special aptitude in the matter of audits and form a class by themselves; it is reasonable that they should be required to audit the accounts of businesses and professions above the prescribed thresholds. There is no material — and, the Court said, there cannot be — that an income-tax practitioner has the same expertise as a chartered accountant in the matter of accounts. For the same reasons the challenge under Article 19 fails, and the Court pointed out that income-tax practitioners remain entitled to be authorised representatives of assessees (in the last working paragraph of the judgment).
The Court's reasoning is short. It identified the exclusion complained of — the definition of 'accountant' in s.44AB, borrowed from the Explanation below s.288(2) — and answered it on a single ground: the training of chartered accountants gives them a special aptitude for audit, so they form a class by themselves, and it is reasonable to require accounts above the statutory thresholds to be audited by them. It found nothing on the record to show that an income-tax practitioner has the same expertise in the matter of accounts, and said there could be none. The Article 19 challenge was rejected 'for the same reasons', with the observation that the practitioners are still entitled to be authorised representatives of assessees (in the last working paragraph of the judgment).
Chartered Accountants, by reason of their training have special aptitude in the matter of audits. It is reasonable that they, who form a class by themselves, should be required to audit the accounts of businesses whose income exceeds Rs. 40 lacs and professionals whose income exceeds Rs. 10 lacs in any given year.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. Being an authorised representative under s.288(2) carries no right to conduct the compulsory audit under s.44AB. The Court gave one reason: chartered accountants, by reason of their training, have a special aptitude in the matter of audits and form a class by themselves, so it is reasonable to require the audit to be done by them; the Article 19 challenge failed "for the same reasons", and the practitioners remain entitled to act as authorised representatives. This was decided by the Supreme Court (S.P. Bharucha and V.N. Khare, JJ (judgment delivered by Bharucha J)) and bears on section 44AB, section 288(2), section Constitution Art. 14, section Constitution Art. 19 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as (1999) 237 ITR 315 (SC); 103 Taxman 621; 153 CTR 203; AIR 1999 SC 2242; (1999) 9 SCC 134; Civil Appeal No. 2824 of 1992. It settles who may sign a s.44AB report and disposes of the recurring constitutional attack on the chartered accountant monopoly, so a practitioner considering signing one should read the answer as final. The decision is equally the authority for the other half of the point: preparing returns, advising and appearing before the authorities as an authorised representative under s.288 remain open, and what was denied was only entry into the audit field. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Do not sign or certify a report under s.44AB unless you are a chartered accountant within the meaning of the Chartered Accountants Act 1949, which is how the Explanation defines 'accountant'.
Section 44AB required every person carrying on business whose sales, turnover or gross receipts exceeded Rs 40 lakh, and every person carrying on a profession whose gross receipts exceeded Rs 10 lakh, to get the accounts of that year audited by an 'accountant'. The Explanation to s.44AB gives that word the meaning it bears in the Explanation below s.288(2) — a chartered accountant within the meaning of the Chartered Accountants Act, together with persons entitled to act as auditors of companies in a particular State under s.226(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. Income-tax practitioners, who are entitled to act as authorised representatives under s.288, challenged the validity of s.44AB on the ground that their exclusion from this audit work violated Articles 14 and 19. The High Court rejected the challenge, as other High Courts had done, and they appealed. The appeal was first dismissed for want of appearance and then restored and heard. The matter was decided on 1998-12-08 by the Supreme Court (S.P. Bharucha and V.N. Khare, JJ (judgment delivered by Bharucha J)). On those facts the Supreme Court held as follows. The appeal was dismissed with costs. Chartered accountants, by reason of their training, have a special aptitude in the matter of audits and form a class by themselves; it is reasonable that they should be required to audit the accounts of businesses and professions above the prescribed thresholds. There is no material — and, the Court said, there cannot be — that an income-tax practitioner has the same expertise as a chartered accountant in the matter of accounts. For the same reasons the challenge under Article 19 fails, and the Court pointed out that income-tax practitioners remain entitled to be authorised representatives of assessees (in the last working paragraph of the judgment).
The Court's reasoning is short. It identified the exclusion complained of — the definition of 'accountant' in s.44AB, borrowed from the Explanation below s.288(2) — and answered it on a single ground: the training of chartered accountants gives them a special aptitude for audit, so they form a class by themselves, and it is reasonable to require accounts above the statutory thresholds to be audited by them. It found nothing on the record to show that an income-tax practitioner has the same expertise in the matter of accounts, and said there could be none. The Article 19 challenge was rejected 'for the same reasons', with the observation that the practitioners are still entitled to be authorised representatives of assessees (in the last working paragraph of the judgment). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "Chartered Accountants, by reason of their training have special aptitude in the matter of audits. It is reasonable that they, who form a class by themselves, should be required to audit the accounts of businesses whose income exceeds Rs. 40 lacs and professionals whose income exceeds Rs. 10 lacs in any given year." The decision followed or applied Affirms the decision of the Madras High Court in T.D. Venkata Rao v. Union of India.
It was decided by the Supreme Court on 1998-12-08 and is reported as (1999) 237 ITR 315 (SC); 103 Taxman 621; 153 CTR 203; AIR 1999 SC 2242; (1999) 9 SCC 134; Civil Appeal No. 2824 of 1992. Binding on every court and authority in India. A Supreme Court decision binds every assessing officer, every Commissioner (Appeals), every bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and every High Court in India. An officer who declines to follow it is acting contrary to law, and that refusal is itself a ground of appeal. On section 44AB, section 288(2), section Constitution Art. 14, section Constitution Art. 19, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the department, and it appears in this library for that reason — you need to know what the Assessing Officer will cite against you. The appeal was dismissed with costs. Chartered accountants, by reason of their training, have a special aptitude in the matter of audits and form a class by themselves; it is reasonable that they should be required to audit the accounts of businesses and professions above the prescribed thresholds. There is no material — and, the Court said, there cannot be — that an income-tax practitioner has the same expertise as a chartered accountant in the matter of accounts. For the same reasons the challenge under Article 19 fails, and the Court pointed out that income-tax practitioners remain entitled to be authorised representatives of assessees (in the last working paragraph of the judgment). It arises in Assessment & Scrutiny matters, on section 44AB, section 288(2), section Constitution Art. 14, section Constitution Art. 19 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by S.P. Bharucha and V.N. Khare, JJ (judgment delivered by Bharucha J). Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Continue to appear and represent under s.288(2) without concern, since the Court held that right was not affected. Do not run an Article 14 or Article 19(1)(g) challenge to the restriction on these lines, because both grounds were argued and rejected.
Still good law. Followed by the Bombay High Court in Sales Tax Practitioners' Association of Maharashtra v. State of Maharashtra [2008] 170 Taxman 371 (Bombay), decided 28 March 2008, which upheld s.61 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 against an identical Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) challenge by advocates and sales tax practitioners, holding that there were practically no distinguishing features between the two provisions and that legal practitioners and chartered accountants, though equals for the purpose of representation, are not equals for the purpose of compulsory audit (paras 16, 19 and 23). No decision doubting or overruling it was found. That finding was checked against a published source, which is linked on this page, on 2026-08-25. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
This is a very short judgment — four working paragraphs — and it should not be cited for more than it says. It gives one reason: the training of chartered accountants gives them a special aptitude for audit, so they form a class by themselves. It contains no discussion of intelligible differentia, of the object of s.44AB, or of Article 19(6), and it does not identify which sub-clause of Article 19 was invoked. The one further point the Court did make is that income-tax practitioners remain entitled to act as authorised representatives. The appeal was dismissed once for want of appearance and then restored, which is why the report opens with a dismissal followed by the word 'Restored'. The CASE REVIEW block in the report prints the affirmed High Court decision as 'T.P. Venkata Rao v. Union of India' and does not give its citation, so the report of the Madras High Court judgment below was not traced. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appeal was dismissed with costs. Chartered accountants, by reason of their training, have a special aptitude in the matter of audits and form a class by themselves; it is reasonable that they should be required to audit the accounts of businesses and professions above the prescribed thresholds. There is no material — and, the Court said, there cannot be — that an income-tax practitioner has the same expertise as a chartered accountant in the matter of accounts. For the same reasons the challenge under Article 19 fails, and the Court pointed out that income-tax practitioners remain entitled to be authorised representatives of assessees (in the last working paragraph of the judgment).
TaxSphere, “T.D. Venkata Rao v Union of India”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/td-venkata-rao-v-union-of-india-44ab/ (validity last checked 2026-08-25)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
My employer gave me a concessional staff loan. Is the interest I saved taxable as a perquisite?
Is the Aadhaar-PAN requirement in s.139AA valid, and can my existing PAN be cancelled under it?
Your Tribunal stay lapsed at 365 days through no fault of yours. Is that constitutional?
I wrote off the whole cost of a laboratory building and its equipment under the scientific research provision. Can I also take depreciation on the same assets in later years, and can the department deny it for years before 1980 using an amendment made in 1980?
