Judgment

Bharucha, J.-The appellant is not represented, though we have waited from some time. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.

2. Restored.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant challenged the validity of Section 44(AB) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 insofar as it required every person carrying on business, if his total sales, turnover or gross receipts exceeded Rs. 40 lacs, and every person carrying on a performance, if his gross receipts exceeded Rs. 10 lacs, in any previous year “to get his accounts of such previous year audited by an accountant before the specified date....”. The Explanation to the Section defines “Accountant” for its purpose to have the same meaning as in the Explanation below Section 288(2). Section 288 deals with authorised representatives. Sub-section (2) clause (4) refers to an Accountant. The explanation says that in that Section “Accountant” means a Chartered Accountant within the meaning of the Chartered Accountancy Act and includes persons entitled to be appointed to act as auditors of companies in a particular state by reasons of the provisions of Section 226(2) of the Companies Act.

4. The challenge