Clause 276 Method of accounting.

Income Tax Bill, 2025

Introduction

Clause 276 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 and Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, both address the foundational principles governing the method of accounting for income computation under the heads "Profits and gains of business or profession" and "Income from other sources." These provisions are critical in the framework of income tax law, as they establish the permissible systems of accounting, the authority of the Central Government to prescribe standards, and the powers of the Assessing Officer (AO) to intervene when there is non-compliance or irregularities in the maintenance of accounts. Understanding the nuances of these provisions, their legislative intent, and practical implications is essential for taxpayers, tax professionals, and regulators alike. This commentary provides an in-depth analysis of Clause 276, explores its objectives, detailed provisions, and practical implications, and then undertakes a comparative examination with the existing Section 145. The analysis also highlights the evolution of the law, policy considerations, and areas where further clarity may be warranted.

Objective and Purpose

The core objective of both Clause 276 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 and Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is to ensure that income for tax purposes is computed on a consistent, transparent, and verifiable basis. The provisions seek to:

• Mandate the use of recognized accounting systems (cash or mercantile) regularly employed by the assessee.
• Empower the Central Government to prescribe Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) for greater uniformity and reliability in reporting.
• Provide mechanisms for the AO to disregard the assessee's accounts and make a best judgment assessment in cases of non-compliance, irregularities, or lack of transparency.

These objectives are rooted in the policy imperative of combating tax evasion, promoting fair tax administration, and ensuring that the income reported by taxpayers reflects the true financial position and results of their business or source of income.

Detailed Analysis of Clause 276 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

Sub-section (1): Permissible Methods of Accounting

"Income chargeable under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession' or 'Income from other sources' shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be computed as per either cash or mercantile system of accounting regularly employed by the assessee."

This sub-section codifies the principle that taxpayers may choose between the cash or mercantile (accrual) systems of accounting, but whichever system is chosen must be employed consistently and regularly. The choice is left to the taxpayer, but the regularity and consistency are paramount to prevent manipulation of income.

• Cash System: Income and expenses are recognized when actually received or paid.
• Mercantile System: Income and expenses are recognized when they accrue, regardless of actual receipt or payment.

The requirement for regular employment of the chosen system is significant. It prevents taxpayers from switching methods year to year to gain tax advantages, thereby ensuring comparability and integrity in financial reporting.

Sub-section (2): Power to Notify Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS)

"The Central Government may notify income computation and disclosure standards to be followed by any class of assessees or in respect of any class of income."

This provision empowers the Central Government to prescribe binding standards for computing income and making disclosures. The introduction of ICDS is a relatively recent development in Indian tax law, intended to provide uniformity and reduce ambiguity in the computation of taxable income, especially where accounting standards under the Companies Act or other frameworks may differ from tax requirements.

• ICDS are not the same as accounting standards under the Companies Act or the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI). They are specifically tailored for tax computation purposes.
• The government may specify different standards for different classes of assessees or types of income, providing flexibility to address sector-specific or income-specific issues.

The mandatory nature of ICDS, once notified, means that even where the assessee's regular accounting method differs, income computation for tax purposes must align with the notified standards.

Sub-section (3): Power of the Assessing Officer to Disregard Accounts and Make Best Judgment Assessment

"The Assessing Officer may make an assessment in the manner provided in section 271, where

- (a) he is not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee;

(b) the method of accounting provided in sub-section (1) has not been regularly followed by the assessee; or

(c) income has not been computed as per the standards notified under sub-section (2)."

This sub-section provides the AO with the authority to resort to a best judgment assessment (in the manner provided in section 271) in three situations:

1. Correctness or Completeness of Accounts: If the AO finds the accounts unreliable, incomplete, or manipulated, he can disregard them.
2. Non-Regular Method of Accounting: If the taxpayer has not consistently followed the chosen method, the AO can intervene.
3. Non-Compliance with ICDS: Failure to compute income as per notified standards triggers the AO's power to assess income independently.

The reference to section 271 (presumably the best judgment assessment procedure under the new Bill) is analogous to the reference to section 144 in the 1961 Act.

Key Features and Interpretative Issues

• The provision ensures that the tax administration has the necessary tools to address non-compliance, intentional or otherwise, by the taxpayer.
• The AO's satisfaction regarding the correctness or completeness of accounts is subjective but must be based on objective criteria and reasonable grounds.
• The requirement for regularity in the method of accounting is a safeguard against opportunistic changes in accounting policy.
• The binding nature of ICDS, once notified, may override certain accounting treatments under other frameworks, potentially leading to differences between book profits and taxable income.

Practical Implications

For Taxpayers

• Taxpayers must choose between the cash or mercantile system and adhere to it consistently year after year.
• They must ensure that their accounting records are complete, accurate, and transparent to withstand scrutiny by the AO.
• Compliance with ICDS, once notified, becomes mandatory for computation of taxable income, even if the taxpayer's financial statements are prepared under different standards.
• Irregularities or non-compliance can result in the AO disregarding the accounts and making a best judgment assessment, which may adversely affect the taxpayer.

For Tax Administration

• The AO is empowered to intervene in cases of non-compliance, but must exercise this power judiciously and with due process.
• The provision supports the administration's goal of ensuring tax compliance and minimizing revenue leakage.
• The introduction of ICDS provides a standardized framework, but may also increase the complexity of compliance and assessment, especially in cases where there are conflicts between ICDS and other accounting standards.

For Regulators and Policymakers

• The provision aligns with international best practices, where tax authorities prescribe specific rules or standards for income computation.
• There is a need for clear guidance and transition provisions when new ICDS are notified, to minimize disputes and ensure smooth implementation.

Comparative Analysis: Clause 276 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

Structural and Substantive Similarities

Both Clause 276 and Section 145 are structurally similar and share the following core features:

• Permissible Accounting Systems: Both permit the use of either the cash or mercantile system, provided it is regularly employed by the assessee.
• Power to Prescribe ICDS: Both empower the Central Government to notify ICDS for specified classes of assessees or income.
• AO's Power to Disregard Accounts: Both authorize the AO to make a best judgment assessment if the accounts are unsatisfactory, the method is not regularly followed, or ICDS are not complied with.

Key Differences and Evolution

1. Reference to Assessment Procedures:
   • Section 145(3) refers to assessment "in the manner provided in section 144" (best judgment assessment under the 1961 Act).
   • Clause 276(3) refers to assessment "in the manner provided in section 271" (presumably the analogous provision under the 2025 Bill).
   • This is a structural change reflecting the renumbering and possible reorganization of assessment procedures in the new Bill.
2. Language and Drafting:
   • The language in Clause 276 is more streamlined and modernized, but substantively mirrors Section 145 as amended by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014.
   • Section 145 has undergone several amendments, notably the substitution of "accounting standards" with "income computation and disclosure standards" in 2014, which is retained in Clause 276.
3. Historical Provisions:
   • Earlier versions of Section 145 included specific provisions regarding interest on securities and allowed the AO to intervene if the method of accounting, though correct and complete, did not permit proper deduction of income. These nuances have been streamlined in the current and proposed versions.
4. Scope of AO's Satisfaction:
   • Both provisions require the AO's "satisfaction" regarding the correctness or completeness of accounts. However, judicial precedents have clarified that such satisfaction must be based on objective material, and the AO cannot invoke best judgment assessment arbitrarily.

Policy Continuity and the ICDS Regime

• The introduction of ICDS represents a significant policy shift towards standardization in tax computation, reducing the discretion available to taxpayers and aligning tax accounting with the government's revenue objectives.
• The move from "accounting standards" to "income computation and disclosure standards" reflects the recognition that tax computation may require rules distinct from those used for financial reporting or other regulatory purposes.
• Clause 276 continues this policy direction, ensuring continuity and stability in the legal framework.

Potential Areas of Conflict and Judicial Interpretation

• Conflicts may arise where ICDS diverge from the ICAI's accounting standards or the Companies Act, leading to differences between book profits and taxable income.
• Judicial interpretation will play a crucial role in resolving ambiguities, especially regarding the overriding effect of ICDS and the AO's discretion in disregarding accounts.
• The Supreme Court and High Courts have consistently held that the AO's power to invoke best judgment assessment must be exercised with caution and only when clear deficiencies or irregularities are established.

Practical Implications and Compliance Considerations

For Businesses and Professionals

• Businesses must ensure robust internal controls and documentation to demonstrate the regularity of their chosen accounting system.
• They must stay abreast of changes in ICDS and ensure timely alignment of their tax computation processes.
• Divergences between financial and tax reporting may require reconciliations, increasing compliance costs and complexity.

For Individuals

• Individuals with income under the relevant heads must also comply with the regularity requirement and ICDS, where applicable.
• Non-compliance can expose them to the risk of income being assessed on a best judgment basis, which may not reflect their actual income.

For Tax Authorities

• The AO's discretion is balanced by the need for objective satisfaction and procedural fairness.
• Training and guidance on the application of ICDS and assessment procedures will be essential to ensure consistency and minimize disputes.

Conclusion

Clause 276 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 represents a continuation and consolidation of the principles laid down in Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961,, as amended. The provision reinforces the importance of regularity and transparency in accounting for tax purposes, empowers the Central Government to prescribe binding standards for income computation, and equips the AO with the necessary authority to address non-compliance. The comparative analysis reveals that, while the structure and substance remain largely unchanged, the modernization of language and reorganization of assessment procedures reflect the evolving needs of tax administration. The implementation of ICDS and the AO's power to intervene are areas where ongoing judicial interpretation and administrative guidance will be crucial. Taxpayers and professionals must remain vigilant in complying with these requirements, and policymakers should ensure that the standards and procedures are clear, fair, and conducive to voluntary compliance.

---

Full Text:

Clause 276 Method of accounting.

Method of accounting: mandatory consistency and binding tax standards lead to AO power to assess by best judgment. Clause 276 permits either the cash or mercantile system for computing income provided the system is regularly followed, authorises the Central Government to notify binding Income Computation and Disclosure Standards for classes of assessees or income, and empowers the Assessing Officer to disregard accounts and make a best judgment assessment where accounts are incorrect or incomplete, the accounting method is not regularly followed, or notified ICDS are not applied.