Case Law Details
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs CA Gordhanbhai Madhabhai Savalia (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court held that removal of name of Chartered Accountant in professional misconduct proceedings for a period of one year unsustainable as institute failed to find any substantial justification in form of unrebutted evidence against the Chartered Accountant.
Facts- The Institute received a complaint dated 20th April 2004 from one Bhuvnesh Chandra, Mumbai (“Complainant”) the Director of M/s. Twincity Glass Pvt. Ltd. (“the Company”) making certain allegations against Respondent. Notably, respondent used to claim reimbursement from the Company in cash for tax payments purportedly done by him on behalf of the Company. Respondent fabricated bogus payment challans by putting forged stamp of Dena Bank, Vile Parle (W) Branch and gave photocopy of the same as proof of payment to the Company. It is also alleged that Respondent fabricated certificates of Sales Tax Authorities showing completion of assessment and sent photocopies of the same as proof thereof. Respondent is further alleged to have collected account payee cheques for making payment of sales tax dues which he misappropriated by depositing in his own bank account. The alleged incident has taken place during the period 1992-1994.
The Council of the Institute (“Council”) at its meeting held in September 2007 at New Delhi, prima facie, found Respondent guilty of professional misconduct and/or other misconduct and accordingly referred the case to Disciplinary Committee (“Committee”) constituted under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (“the Act”).
The Committee held various meetings and concluded the hearing on 1st August 2008. Report was submitted to the Council holding Respondent guilty for ‘other misconduct’ falling within the meaning of Section 22 read with Section 21 of the Act. The Council in its meeting held in November 2010, upon consideration of the Committee’s report along with Respondent’s written representations dated 29th August 2009 and 8th March 2010, remanded the matter to the Committee for an enquiry de novo.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
