B. M. Kamdar 1 , and rejected the revision petitions.
Appeals by special leave from the order dated January 29, 1963 of the Commissioner of Income tax, Bombay City 1, in No.
By his orders dated May 30, 1960 and October 26, 1960, the Income tax Officer subjected the aforesaid two sums to tax treating them as receipts of fees for professional services rendered in the earlier years and as part of the total income of the assessee.
In the assessment year, 1958 59, the assessee was assessed to income tax in respect of the entire professional income received by him, during the Calendar year including the income received after March 1, 1957.
15,240 respectively on account of professional fees for work done by him before March 1, 1957.
A. Palkhivala, T. A. Ramachandran, S. P. Mehta and O, Mathur, for the appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos, 731 732 of 1964.
Sarjoo Prasad, R. Ganapathy Iyer and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
As an advocate he had been assessed to income tax on his professional income, his accounting years for the assessments being the calendar years, When he was raised to the Bench, various fees for professional work done by him were outstanding.
On April 4, 1961, the assessee filed two revision petitions before the Commissioner of Income tax, Bombay City 1, under S. 33 A companytending that the aforesaid two sums were numberpart of his total income of the relevant accounting years and were included in his returns through an error and asking for their exclusion from his assessable income for the relevant assessment years.
From this order, the assessee number appeals to this Court by special leave.
In the years 1958 and 1959 during numberpart of which he had carried on any profession, he received certain moneys on account of these outstanding fees.
His method of accounting was cash, and his accounting year was the Calendar year.
1/RP BBY/40 and 41 of 1961.
The assessee was practising as an advocate in the High Court of Bombay till March 1, 1957 when he was appointed a Judge of the High Court at Bombay.
By a companymon order dated January 29, 1963, the Commissioner of Income tax held that the two sums were assessable on general principles and also on the authority of the decision in Re.
During the Calendar years, 1958 and 1959, the assessee re ceived the sums of Rs.
Sarkar.
The Judgment Of SARKAR, C.J. and MUDHOLKAR, J. was delivered by SARKAR, C.J. BACHAWAT, I. delivered a dissenting opinion.
In the returns for the assessment years, 1959 60 and 196061, the assessee included the aforesaid two sums as his income from profession.
He then ceased to carry on his profession and has number resumed it since.
30,570 and Rs.
The assessee was an advocate of the High Court of Bombay and was practicing his profession there till March 1, 1957 when he was elevated to the Bench of that Court.
His accounts had always been kept on the cash basis.
It is number disputed that the assessee was liable to pay tax in respect of the income received by him between March 1, 1957 and December 31, 1957.
The relevant orders of the Income tax Officer suggest that his accounting year was the financial year ending on March 3 1, but it is number the companymon case of both the assessee and the Revenue that the accounting year was the Calendar year.
