During appeal proceedings before Tribunal, CIT-DR raised a preliminary issue of conflict of interest, arguing that authorized representatives of assessee  Dinesh Inbavadivu   and  Arjun Rai  who represented Tribunal before Central Information Commission (CIC), also represented clients before various benches of Tribunal in cases against revenue and this dual representation created a conflict of interest. Tribunal held that the  conflict of interest occurs when personal, financial, or previous involvements could influence judgment, but no such situations were present in instant case. Hence in view of lack of evidence supporting any financial or personal interest between parties involved, CIT-DR’s claim that conflict of interest would jeopardize their interests is   rejected Whether while  Dinesh Inbavadivu     represented Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), before CIC, there was no evidence of Arjun Rai  ‘s representation of CPIO, and allegation was deemed incorrect. I. Dinesh was appointed by President of Tribunal in an administrative capacity to represent CPIO, and it had nothing to do with his judicial role as a Member of Tribunal. Tribunal also held that CIT-DR is  not empowered to file additional grounds of appeal or miscellaneous application including application raising preliminary objection without consent of Assessing Officer, however, no such consent was taken from Assessing Officer in instant case.  Tribunal is  not right place to disqualify a lawyer or law firm as a regulatory measure; such matters could be dealt with by appropriate bodies like Bar Council of India (BCI).Therefore, application of CIT-DR alleging conflict of interest is  frivolous and mischievous and hence, department is  advised to provide proper training to him before assigning him to a judicial forum. (AY. 2014-15,2015-16)