The ICAI has addressed a letter dated 27.11.2015 to the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Chandigarh, raising objections to the alleged proposal of the department not to allow Chartered Accountants and non-Advocates to “practice law” in the course of proceedings before the tax authorities. The ICAI has pointed out that taxation is one of the “core-competence” areas of Chartered Accountants and that they have expertise in accounting, auditing and taxation. It is also pointed out that these subjects are dealt with in great depth in the CA curriculum and that the ICAI has dedicated committees on taxation. It is emphasized that a chartered accountant, on passing his final examination and completing his articled training, is an expert in taxation, accountancy, auditing, company law and other laws etc., and he is fully qualified to practice in these fields. The ICAI has also drawn attention to several legislation and judicial pronouncements to support its contention that CAs are qualified to practice taxation law and cannot be barred from the same.
27th November, 2015
The Principal Chief Commissioner
Sub: Only enrolled Advocates are licensed to practice Law in India- Not to allow Chartered Accountants/ Non- Advocates for practice of law in the course of proceedings before revenue authorities falling under the jurisdiction of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Commission of Income Tax, Amritsar, Jammu etc.
Recently, it has come to our knowledge that a proposal not allowing Chartered Accountants/ Non- Advocates for practice of law in the course of proceedings before revenue authorities falling in your jurisdiction is under consideration.
In this regard, although, comments have not been called for from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India New Delhi, yet being the statutory body and regulator as well, we wish to bring the following facts for your consideration.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, is a statutory body established by an Act of Parliament namely ‘The Chartered Accountants Act, 1949’ for regulating the profession of Chartered Accountants. We further, wish to inform you that a significant majority of our membership is in the practice with a good deal of specialisation in the traditional areas of direct/ indirect taxes and in emergent specialism inter alia, in financial services, information technology, insurance sector, joint ventures, mutual funds, exchange risk management, risk and assurance services, environment / energy/quality audits, investment counselling, corporate structuring and foreign collaborations etc.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India is also engaged in the Nation building by contributing to Central and various State Governments and other regulators viz, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Trade Policy division of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Reserve Bank of India, Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Securities Exchange Board of India etc. to name a few, on the relevant matter of importance to the profession and having bearing to the public interest.
The education and training programme of the Institute to the qualification of Chartered Accountancy is adequately designed to ensure that our members have in depth knowledge/ experience of accounting, taxation, financing and audit etc. The Institute spares no efforts in keeping pace with the current accounting and auditing practices prevalent throughout the world. An individual who qualifies as a Chartered Accountant has to mandatorily undergo rigorous practical training and has to keep his knowledge updated in the matter relating to accountancy, audit, taxation and corporate laws etc. The area of training covers accountancy, auditing, taxation, company law and other laws. The level of knowledge prescribed in the various subjects covered by the syllabus of the Chartered Accountancy course is ‘expert knowledge’.
That Taxation including Indirect Taxes is one of the core-competence areas of Chartered Accountants. In India, Chartered Accountants have expertise in accounting, auditing and taxation, since these subjects are dealt with in great depth in the CA curriculum. Further, Taxation constitutes a significant area of practice of CAs. It is due to this reason the Institute has three separate dedicated committees on taxation, namely, Direct Taxes Committee, Indirect Taxes Committee and Committee on International Taxation. These committees are amongst the most important committees of the Institute and they act as a liaison between the Revenue and the tax payers. The Committees comprise of chartered accountant members of the Central Council, as well as other co-opted members, who are experts in the field of Taxation from across the country. Therefore, it is clear that a chartered accountant, on passing his final examination and completing his articled training, is an expert in taxation, accountancy, auditing, company law and other laws etc., and he is accordingly fully qualified to practice in these fields.
Chartered Accountants are thus well trained in various laws which are applied while conducting cases before various tribunals and other similar authorities.
The provisions of Income tax Act involve computation and analysis of profit and loss account which directly relates to accounting procedure or the recording, presentation or certification of financial facts or data. Chartered Accountants being an expert in understanding and analyzing the financial statements are thus the right person for explaining the related facts in case of dispute.
For application of tax legislations, the prima facie documents are financial statements thus the government has given the task relating to financial statements appropriately to Chartered Accountants.
The matters before the Tax Authorities involve issues and questions mainly relating to accountancy and require knowledge and expertise in accounting matters. This is why many of the leading and most successful tax advocates are also qualified Chartered Accountants. The appearance of Chartered Accountants before tax authorities and tribunals has always been considered to be an integral part of the practice of a Chartered Accountancy ever since 1940s, when the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was first set up and when Chartered Accountants began appearing before it.
It is necessary to note that the members of the Institute are thus well trained in the fields of various laws which are applied while conducting the cases before the various tax/revenue authorities. It is in recognition of that crucial fact the various applicable statutes specifically permit Chartered Accountants to appear before authorities and Tribunals constituted under those statutes. A few of such statutes are listed below:-
(a) Section 288 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 50 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962
(b) Section 35-Q of the Central Excise Act, 1944
(c) Section 146-A of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 9(a) of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982
(d) Section 15-V of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992
(e) Section 22(C) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956
(f) Section 17 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1991
(g) Section 432 of the Companies Act, 2013
(h) Regulation 19 of the Company Law Board Regulations, 1991
(i) Section 35 and Section 53 S of the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2007
(j) Rule 61 of the Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006
(k) Before the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission vide Notification No.8/(1)/99/CERC dated 27.8.1999
(l) Airport Economic Regulatory Authority of India Act; in terms of section 30, CA can appear before Appelate Tribunal
(m) The Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 — in terms of Sections 16 and 32
Needless to mention that the Institute, since its inception in the year of 1949, has always remained at the forefront in serving the nation by establishing sound financial prudence within the country.
Further, the Institute has a stringent code of conduct/Ethics which are required to be followed by its members. It is also pertinent to mention that the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 provides the disciplinary mechanism for making investigation and taking disciplinary action in respect of any complaint/information of professional/other misconduct in respect of a member and/or levy of penalty of permanent removal of name from the register of members and/or levy of penalty up to Rupees Five Lakhs as well depending on the gravity of offence(s). Therefore, the Chartered Accountants are governed by the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 and the Chartered Accountants Regulations 1988 framed there under and are subject to strict provisions of professional ethics and professional conduct and any deviation there from would make them liable for disciplinary action under the said Act. The ICAI has established a Peer Review Board to ensure compliance with technical standards, acceptance and adherence to quality control policies and procedures by Chartered Accountants firm in the services being rendered by them. Such reviews certainly boost the confidence of society at large in the quality of work of Chartered Accountants in India.
The term ‘practice of profession of law’ has not been defined under the Advocates Act, 1961. The appearance before the Authorities established under the Income-Tax Act does not amount to ‘practice of profession of law’. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Venkatachalam vs. Ajitkumar C. Shah & Ors. [6 (2011) 9 SCC 707], while considering the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, upheld the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, whereby the Hon’ble High Court held that a party before the District Consumer Forum/State Commission cannot be compelled to engage the service of an advocate. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed that the High Court was fully justified in observing that the authorized agents do not practice law when they are permitted to appear before the District Forum and the State Commission. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also approved the view taken by the High Court that many statutes, such as, Value Added Tax, Income Tax and Competition Act also permit non-advocates to represent the parties before the authorities and those non-advocates cannot be said to be practicing law.
A perusal of Section 33 of the Advocates Act, 1961 shows that it specifically contemplates and provides that the other statute in question may specifically permit persons other than Advocates to appear before Courts and Tribunals functioning under that statute. Such provisions are to be found in all Central as well as State Acts dealing with various direct and indirect taxes such as Income Tax, Excise Duty, Value Added tax, etc. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.D. Nagpal v. Vijay Dutt [(2011) 12 SCC 498] considered the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Rule 14(3) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 allowed the parties or their agents to appear before the National Commission, and the expression ‘agent’ as defined in Section 2(b) of the said Act means a person duly authorised by a party to present any complaint, appeal or reply on its behalf before the National Commission. The Supreme Court held that given the wide definition of the expression ‘agent’, there was no reason, if the Commission were otherwise satisfied that a person was authorised on behalf of the appellant, to refuse to allow him to represent it and to cross examine the complainant. The provisions of Section 33 of the Advocates Act of 1961 came up for consideration and it was held as follows:-
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has relied upon Section 33 of the Advocates Act, 1961. Section 33 makes it clear that advocates alone will be entitled to practice before any court or before any authority, etc. “except as otherwise provided in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force”. The Consumer Protection Act read with the Rules would be “a law for the time being in force”.
Recently, the Lucknow Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in case No. 7116 of 2014, Tax Lawyers Association, Lucknow Through General Secry. & Anr. vs. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Tax & Registration, has passed an Order dated 06.08.2014 directing, inter alia, that any person, who is not a registered Advocate, shall not be permitted to appear before the Authority under the U.P. VAT Act. Further, the Hon’ble Bench of the Chief Justice of Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, after hearing the arguments in detail on 20th August, 2014, modified the above Order dated 6th August, 2014 vacating the stay and consequently, Chartered Accountants continue to be permitted to appear before the authorities under the VAT Act in the State of U.P. The Division Bench of the Hon’ble Chief Justice’s Court, in its Order dated 20.08.2014, observed that Section 29 of the Advocates Act, 1961 speaks of there being only one class of persons entitled to practice the profession of law, namely, advocates. Section 33 of the said Act contemplates that only a person who is enrolled as an advocate under the Act will be entitled to practice in any court or before any authority or person. The entitlement to practice under Section 33 of the Advocates Act, 1961 is obviously an entitlement to practice the profession of law but what is more important is that Section 33 recognises that any other provision of law and for that matter, the Act itself may authorize a person who is not enrolled as an advocate under it to practice in any court or before any authority or person.
Consequently, there is no question of the ultra vires doctrine being attracted for the simple reason that Section 33 of the Act of 1961 contemplates that any other law may authorize a person who is not enrolled as an advocate under the Act to practice before any court, authority or person.
It is stated that the above matter is pending before the Lucknow Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for final hearing.
The Statute only confers on lawyers the exclusive right to practice law. With the passage of time there are a lot of functions which are overlapping with the practice of law and such overlapping functions cannot confer the right on lawyers under the Advocates Act. Any such interpretation will stultify the growth and evolution of society and the rules of effective and expeditious dispute resolution. It is, therefore, of vital importance to note that Section 33 of the Advocates Act, 1961 itself specifically contemplates and provides that the other statute in question may specifically permit persons other than Advocates to appear before Courts and Tribunals functioning under that statute. Such provisions are to be found in all Central as well as State Acts dealing with various direct and indirect taxes such as
Income tax, Excise duty, value added tax etc. Thus, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is constituted under the provisions of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 288 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides for appearance by ‘authorised representatives’ before any Income-tax Authority or the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
Moreover, the matters before the various tax/revenue authorities involving mainly issues and questions relating to Accountancy and require knowledge and expertise in accounting matters. Indeed, even if an advocate appears in such matters, he cannot present his case in the most effective manner without a good knowledge of accountancy. This is why many of the leading and most successful tax advocates are also qualified Chartered Accountants. The appearance of Chartered Accountants before tax authorities and tribunals has always been considered to be an integral part of the practice of a Chartered Accountancy ever since 1940s. As stated above, the Institute spares no efforts in keeping pace with the accounting practices prevalent and those evolving throughout the World. A person who qualifies as a Chartered Accountant is to undergo rigorous practical training spanning three years and has to keep his knowledge updated in the matters relating to accountancy and the applicable laws. In any event, it is entirely for the framers of the various enactments viz. Income Tax Act, 1961, the Companies Act, 2013 etc. to lay down who should be eligible to appear before the Tribunals and authorities constituted under each of these respective enactments.
The Income Tax Act and the provisions contained therein as to who can appear in proceedings under those enactments are special provisions of law which would necessarily prevail over the general provisions contained in the Advocates Act.
Each legislation enacted by Parliament or by a State Legislature is an independent code by itself. Parliament and the State Legislature duly take into consideration the various issues involved and incorporate the requirements into the respective legislations. Therefore, to re-write such provisions so as to provide that the appearance by other professionals is for a limited purpose only is totally unwarranted.
That law is a dynamic subject and the growth of trade and commerce and the requirements of revenues of Governments have resulted in the emergence of specialized legislations like the Income-tax Act, the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Customs Act, 1956 and other various State-Level VAT Legislations. The Constitution of India itself has recognized the importance of the specialized fields of such legislations and has expressly provided for the creation of specialized tribunals which take care of such specialized fields of law. Parliament in its wisdom, while enacting aforesaid legislations have considered all the relevant issues before incorporating the provisions relating to authorized representatives. These legislations specifically allowed professionals other than advocates to be authorized representatives. This clearly amplifies the point that the legislature is fully conscious of the requirements of the particular specialized legislation. The purpose of establishing various Tribunals is to decide issue on a particular subject by experts in that field and in that direction, specialized Tribunals have been created by the various statutes. If the Chartered Accountants, who for reasons of rigorous practical training and examinations, have acquired expertise in accounting and taxation laws, were not to be allowed to appear before such specialized authorities/Tribunals, the very purpose of establishment of such Tribunals would get defeated. Besides, such restrictions will limit the choice afforded to the affected persons by the statutes to choose their representative.
In the matter of Rajkot Engineering Association and Ors. And Tax Advocates Association and Ors.v. Union of India MANU/GJ/0019/1986 the Gujarat High Court held as follows:
“There is no restriction on the right of the assessees to select as their own authorised representatives whomever they like whether the same chartered accountants who have carried out the tax audit or other chartered accountants or other Income Tax practitioners….
In the present state of Income Tax law, the interpretation and development of which has become very intricate and complex, it is not difficult to anticipate that a situation has arisen where more and more assessees would like to be assisted both by the chartered accountants as well Income Tax consultants and practitioners who may be non-chartered accountants in arranging their financial affairs and in the maintenance of their accounts, records and documents for preparation of the returns and in the course of assessment before tax authorities.”
In the above backdrop we are of the view that it would not be appropriate to consider any such proposal which restrains the Chartered Accountants from appearing before the revenue authorities in India particularly when various Central/State legislations including the Income Tax Act, 1961 expressly provide and authorise the Chartered Accountants to appear and represent the cases before the authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, we may request you to consider our submissions as above and afford us an opportunity to present our case in person before taking any final decision in this regard. In case your good office needs any further clarifications, we may please be advised.
But in view of latest verdict in the case Bar Council of India Vs A.K.Balaji (SC) Dt.04.07.2012 read with A.K.Balaji Vs Govt. of India (2012) 35 KLR 290 21.02.2012 (HC) covering both the litigious and non-litigious matter within the definition of “practice of law” in India, representation of non-lawyers in administrative proceedings also held to bad in law, null and void.
Sec 33 of the Advocates Act, 1961 must be amended since it is conjointly dissimilar. the meaning of the first part of it as “..only the advocates can practice..” is totally contrary with the meaning of the last part which says any authority or other law can permit a non advocate to perform the practice of law. Two meanings contrary to each other can’t be true. This defective statement actually is violating the object of the whole Act.
Correction: Accordingly CAs (with exceptions) are more #CASUAL
Practice of law needs to be defined clearly. A varied degree of Chartered As are enough to understand law, however they are hadly able to exercise the code before courts (which is absolutely not covered in the internship or the course material). Accordingly CAs (with exceptions) are more formal before authorities than an advocate. A collaboration between two bodies need to be arrived, a truce in this regard will benefit all.
Law one gets acclimatized over several years of legal law practice sir.
dear sir, law cannot be taught in schools or by CA apprenticeships, i have seen so many CAs say they know law, i doubt whether they really know procedural practice of law, may be in accounting procedure; i feel lost when i see CAs at banks how they function like fresh LL.B as Advocates. sad indeed, i sympathize with Gupta , i think he could perhaps reasonably familiar with procedure, why without hard core practice as also good readings of law with case laws provide one reasonable understanding if one is reasonable in interpretation of statutes, that even among advocates too score badly, any way law profession indeed to be better to be better equipped when we say so how can we say CAs are super?
I would like to say that A Chartered Accountant is a competent person in the field of Tax Laws and An Advocate or a Non Advocate person can’t have so much expertise in the Tax Field or Any Other economic sector field. These person (Whether Advocate or Non Advocate) can never have expertise in such fields. I would like to say on your comment about Articleship. An Article trainee is equal to a chartered accountant in the last year of his training. So Please don’t underestimate an articled assistant. Thanks.
I am unable to convince myself that Income Tax authorities would be considering such irrational proposal.
However, I must say that ICAI should do a lot of introspection as to why the profession is losing public respect. The regulatory and disciplinary responsibilities are given only lip service by the ICAI. It will be interesting to know as to in how many cases any disciplinary action has been taken by ICAI.
respect is never asked for, but need to be gained.
Yes sir. You are right. Simple qualifications (whatever higher might be) do not confer any qualities of proficiency on persons. If that be true, the Officers of Incometax Department would have been more proficient than the professionals. In fact the Officers have a wider exposure to more types of cases, more methods of evasion tactics, more styles of camouflaging the facts, more styles of window dressing of Balance sheets etc. But the truth i.e. success rate at ITAT level and above of appeals reveals the virtuality.
Perhaps you don’t know how much difficult to become a Chartered Accountant and that’s why you are saying the CA Degree a simple qualification. I would like to suggest to observe for a single day the hard work of a CA Aspirant.I challenge you,On the very next moment, you will feel guilty on your such discouraging comment and if you have commented without taking such hard work in consideration then you are a very bad professional who don’t take the facts under consideration while handling a case.
Nice presentation covering genuion arguments with contribution by CA to nation in general.
whatever it is, it is, but my view when a client hired three or four CAs to fight the irrational 143 Notice was issued to him all the three failed miserably but all said to that person he has to pay the irrational penalty and the irrational assessment orders, besides they misrepresented before CIT(A) and ITAT; then fed up that client appeared in person at ITAT, and proved that sec 143 Notice is non est, as it was issued once ROI was filed more than 12 months earlier to the Notice and the ITAT just annulled the Notice.
What is the credibility of ability of the CAs in law is the question when ICAI says these CAs have adequate training in law and practice, is the question.
so any profession needs adequate practice in that area, as new advocates once get their sannad may not be able to fight a just a normal case, so clients look for senior advocates only to fight their matters.
so let the clients decide to whom they entrust their case, instead of CAs or just Advocates deciding on the clients’ cases.
clients are best judges, as the person in person can handle his own case before any tribunal including SC.
It is said process and procedure every law is subject to instead of its own just sections, so tycoons just do not pay any taxes due to procedure or process defects that is vital for any law to have a claw on the person.
If process and procedure fails the court case fails, is indeed a world known fact.
saying corporate and other laws CAs can handle just do not hold water just by virtue of course material, no course material talks on process and procedure but it all depends on the individual’s ability to locate in the relevant laws, just accountants use their accounting strategies.
so every profession better remain within its own area if not you would do no justice to your own chosen profession.
If so why clients should go for you, just think..no client would spend a farthing for a wasteful effort is my view.
clients today want everything just free, more so in every kind of advocacy.
i am not taking any sides here but project facts.
I do concur with Dr. G. Balakishnan. The aptitude and attitude of a person makes him perfect. If the person has eagerness to learn he would not hesitate to go to a lowest in the office to know the procedure. To learn the process and practice one has to go round the offices where different sections are located and functioning. If an advocate argues in High Court his argument skills will not fetch him more clients. Similarly CAs have to provide some additional free services like making correspondence. I know one CA in Warangal who used do free service to all salaried employees right from the free advice to representation. So whenever opportunity come to the salaried employees they used to refer all business cases to that CA. Thus he had procured large and bigger cases of the area.
Varaprasadji, u r right. When ‘rights’ became the problem, if one does not forget his ‘duties’ then rights may be some what useful.
Osho says, Mind is a monkey, it makes any one monkey like, after all mind is avaricious and full of greed and laziness syndrome. It shows some myopic things to one and that myopia drives him crazy.
see when sec 13 in the NTT Act is passed, the CAs think they are super grade interpreters of law, but the honorable SC clearly stated interpretation of law calls for different abilities, depending on such abilities the matters are brought forth before higher level tribunals once facts are exhausted then question of law is argued, that way arguing on question of law is not for any certified professional qualification’s cup of tea, say even if a just LL.B or LL.M degree holder cannot claim that he is able to interpret laws as such .So it is clear one needs to have that particular ability.
In that way, only counsels argue on question of law though the Advocates on record might file the petition…in fact AOR definitely suggest to clients, they would engage counsels to argue the interpretation on laws.
When so , is it not clear interpretation of law if not properly argued, the court summarily dismisses the matter,not on merits, enabling with the right for the client to refile at the little lower tribunal, means the hon court is conscious that the client should not lose his litigation as such.
The principle is law is not that easy game more so very interpretation of statutes.
More difficult is the interpretation of the constitution itself.
You are arguing before the bench mostly occupied by CJs of high courts mostly on a supreme court bench.
It should be very clear unless you have a great grip of the statute or the articles concerned with their multifarious interpretations what would you argue for and against a particular statute or article is the question.
No fresher-Advocate could claim he has a great grip on interpretation of statutes or the constitution; so he dutifully engages senior counsels not just for heck of it, but he is concerned of the client’s issue; if client’s confidence is gone that advocate might not be recognized by any other clients…after all clients only decide whom to engage once choice of so many counsels are given by the AORs.
that way AORs at SC are very careful.
Just simply because one has minimum entry qualification does not necessarily qualify one to put his head in the issue concerned.
Even to counsels need not necessarily have big flowing degrees; just B.L or LL.B is alright but he shall have adequate exposure to interpretation by himself having argued issues of same or similar kind of issues..else some counsels would not just put his head into it, after all without necessary confidence adequately supported by right exposure he would not like to lose his stature before the client;
after all client is the first entrance door to him to appear before the relevant bench.
He is very careful as a counsel too.
when so simply saying some courses i had done so i am competent saying is really unsafe procedure for any person to jump into, that way I thought the ICAI need to be as an association need to tread on safe lines not just on foolhardy confidence about their own members abilities simply depending on some courses of studies given by ICAI.
Care is a most important aspect in any moves is my sincere advice.
Might be some CAs with several years of experience or exposure might be capable;
not necessarily all CAs who just passed out with a CA qualification may be they stood 1st in their examination.
Every appearance before a top level bench is a daily examination of your ability every time you appear.
That way self examination would be most desirable not simply run with some ‘right’ one can talk about.
See Constitution never says every right you can have must be used.
Constitution only says your individual rights have to be well backed by your own ‘skills or abilities’, you have, that is all;
else you would just make yourself big fool of yourself, is the thought.
You correctly stated at Warrangal some CAs or lawyers really do free services, that gives them real exposure on the issues they got engaged in.
A stitch in time indeed saves nine sir!.
thanks n regards.
These babus can’t read & interpret the basic provisions of law and ICAI wants them to understand Sec. 288 !.. Best way to deal with them is to file a writ petition, such people (despite getting fat pays & perks) understands only when courts slap them tight.
I venture to present the issue in another angle. I shall not be taken as supporters of either group.
1. When an assessing officer whose minimum qualification was graduation (irrespective of the subjects he studied) was entitled to enforce the law why not a well practise advocate or accountant cannot audit the final accounts?
2. When an Incometax authority whose minimum qualification was a gradation (irrespective of the subjects he studied) can become an appellate authority (CIT-A)?
3. When an Incometax authority whose minimum qualification was a gradation (irrespective of the subjects he studied) can become a law administrative authority like implementation of Secs. 263 / 264 etc.?
4. Sec. 288 also allows a person who performed as an assessing officer at least for 2 years is authorized to represent before the I T authorities including Tribunal.
All my above questions rock my mind since the above discussion was started as long back as 1999 (I do not remember the exact year). In addition the following point is arising to my little mind is that
5. How can a Pr. Chief Commissioner initiate action not to implement the provisions of Incometax Act which has all India effect and not to be amended piecemeal in respect of parts of India.
Any forum member please enlighten me.
When Auditing can be the sole domain/right of Chartered Accountant, why not the Practice of Law be the sole domain/right of the Advocates. The Hon’ble Delhi Court while deciding a case where the Petitioner Advocate had sought relief for allowing the Advocates to carry on Statutory Audit u/s 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961,rejected the relief sought on the ground that Audit work is the sole domain/right of Chartered Accountants and not of Advocates. In my opinion the natural outcome of that decision is fully applicable (reversly) to brothers Chartered Accountants, i.e., Practice of Law is the sole domain/right of Advocates and ICAI should not have any objection.
The Hon’ble CBDT/Law Ministry is,therefore,requested to ban Chartered Accountants to Practice Law not only before Income Tax Authorities but before various Tribunals including Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The amount of knowledge the syllabus of Chartered accountancy has in Income Tax, I am not sure whether the Advocates who have ONE subject in taxation for one semester can match upto the same. There are differences in passing rates for Chartered Accountants and lawyers, which also needs to be taken into consideration.
Also to be noted that the best of the counsel in Income Tax are Charted Accountants and lawyers both. Which goes to say that in order to have a better command on the Income Tax Law, CA degree is a one of the best paths.
Also that Lawyers can present the case for more than 3,800 Legislation in India. Even for Income Tax, they are allowed to present.
So the current status that CAs are allowed to present until ITAT and only Lawyers can present in High Court and Supreme Court looks extremely fair.