In a very interesting move which may not be a good news for practicing CA, CS, CMA etc. who are engaged in practice in the area of Law and taxation,  Rajasthan Tax Bar Association have filed a petition before  Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT), Rajasthan and urged him  to not to allow any one else then advocates Registered with state Bar Councils to appear in any proceeding before Assessing Authorities as well as Appellate Authorities of Income Tax.

The Bar council in its petition has referred Madras High Court Judgment in the case of M. Krishnammal vs T. Balasubramania Pillai, Power … on 21 April, 1937  -Equivalent citations: AIR 1937 Mad 937.

This may be a major set back for Chartered accountants after Raise in Limit for Bank Audit and Tax Audits.

Download Copy of Petition filed Before CCIT Rajasthan by Rajasthan Tax Bar Association

Full Text of the above referred Madras High Court Judgment in the case of M. Krishnammal vs T. Balasubramania Pillai, Power … on 21 April, 1937  -Equivalent citations: AIR 1937 Mad 937 is as follows :-

Madras High Court

M. Krishnammal


T. Balasubramania Pillai, Power

21 April, 1937

Equivalent citations: AIR 1937 Mad 937


Beasley, C.J.

1. This matter has been referred to us by Gentle, J. The following questions have been raised, viz. (1) Whether an agent with a power of attorney to appear and conduct judicial proceedings has the right of audience in Court; (2) whether the agent is entitled to notice if his principal wants to appear and conduct the proceedings himself in person or appoints an advocate to appear for him; and (3) whether the power of attorney agent can carry on business as a solicitor or attorney, drafting, engrossing and filing plaint, Judge’s summons, affidavits and generally issuing legal process and Charge fees to the principal.

2. That all three questions stand to be answered in the negative seems to us to be clear; but as the respondent has definitely asserted a right to the notice specified in question 2, and certainly by strong implication if not by his conduct to the right of audience stated in question 1 and the matters in question 3 also arise both out of his conduct and claim, we consider that this matter which is of course of extreme importance to the legal profession should be fully discussed by us. The matter arises in the following way: The respondent; is the holder of a power of attorney given to him by one Krishnammal, a widow. Krishnammal had filed a suit in the Madras City Civil Court against her sister Thayarammal to get her half share in the assets of one Palla Kuppammal, deceased, and it was necessary to apply for a search and get copies of the records in O.P. No. 58 of 1935 (T.O. 8. No. 7 of 1935) on the file of the High Court and to take further proceedings therein. Being unable to stay in Madras she appointed the respondent as agent to search the records and apply for copies thereof in the above matter, to file into and receive from Court all papers relating thereto, to swear affidavits, to file necessary petitions and to verify and sign the same, to appear and plead in Court in parson on my behalf, to engage advocates If necessary and to sign in their vakalats, to do all acts necessary in the conduct of the above proceedings and in furtherance thereof.

3. In the before-mentioned litigation (T.O.S. No 7 of 1935) a petition was posted on 16th November 1936 before the Master, and on that date, when the petition was called on, Mr. T.R. Srinivasa Iyengar appeared on behalf of Krishnammal having been given a vakalat by her. The petition was adjourned and the respondent filed an affidavit on 26th November 1936, stating that Krishnammal had neither orally nor in writing intimated to him that she did not wish him to appear in the litigation and without revoking his power of attorney (which be marked as an exhibit) had engaged Mr. T. R Srinivasa Iyengar, and he further stated that Krishnammal did this in order to deprive him of the remuneration due to him payable by her; and he claimed that the power of attorney was of the same force and validity as that of a vakalat and that, unless it was revoked by formal proceedings through Court, no orders could be passed on the petition. Therefore, by reason of the authority given to him in the power of attorney, he claimed the same right as a legal practitioner who has been given a vakalat; and since the power of attorney authorizes him to plead in Court, it follows that he claims that right; and indeed we are informed that either in these proceedings or in some other, Lakshmana Rao, J. allowed him to address the Court. In view of the claim put forward by the respondent in the affidavit referred to, the Master posted the matter before Gentle, J. for orders and he has referred the matter to us and it has been fully argued here by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Krishnammal, the Bar Council, the Advocates’ Association and the Attorneys’ Association; and we have also heard the respondent in person.

4. We may say at once that there is an unreported Bench decision of this High Court directly in point on the first question in C.M.P. No. 498 of 1911, where it was held by Benson and Sundara Ayyar, JJ. that a right to appear in Court for his principal given to a recognized agent by Order 3, Rules 1 and 2, Civil P. C, does not include a right to plead, that it means simply that one can take proceedings to submit oneself to jurisdiction that the High Court has under the Letters Patent and the Legal Practitioners’ Act and under Sections 119 and 122, Civil P. C, power to make rules as to who shall plead for parties before the High Court in its original and appellate jurisdiction and in the lower Courts, that Section 10, Letters Patent, makes provision with regard to who alone can plead before the High Court and that others such as recognized agents cannot have the right to plead. There are also two decisions of the Calcutta High Court upon this point, viz. Harchand Ray v. B.N. Ry. Co., (1916) 3 AIR Cal 181 and In re Eastern Tavoy Minerals Corporation, Ltd., (1984) 21 AIR Cal 563. In the former, a recognized power of attorney agent claimed a right to plead in Court on behalf of his principal under Order 3, Rule 1, Civil P.C., but it was held by Jenkins, C.J. and Chaterjea, J. that he bad no right of audience; and in the latter ease, a director of a company holding a power of attorney, authorizing him to appear for and on behalf of the company, to conduct and represent the company in the proceedings, claimed the right of audience on behalf of the company and, applying the ruling in the former case, it was held that he had no right of audience. It is plain from these three cases that Rules 1 and 2 of Order 3, Civil P. C, do not give the recognized agent any right to plead in Court on behalf of his principal either in the appellate or Original Sides of the High Court and, even if it could be contended successfully that Order 3 gives a right to a recognized agent to plead in Court on the appellate side, it is clear that he can have no such right of audience on the Original Side because of Section 119 which provides that:

Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to authorize any person on behalf of another to address the Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction, or to examine witnesses, except where the Court shall have in the exercise of the power conferred by its Charter authorized him so to do, or to interfere with the power of the High Court to make rules concerning advocates, vakils and attorneys.

5. The respondent certainly has not been authorized by the High Court to do so. In this connexion Clauses 9 and 10, Letters Patent, are important. Clause 9 relates to the powers of the High Court as to the admission of advocates, vakils and attorneys, and such advocates, vakils and attorneys as have been approved, admitted and enrolled by the High Court are authorized to appear for suitors in the High Court and plead or act for them according as the High Court may by its rules and directions determine and subject to such rules and directions; and Clause 10 gives the High Court power to make rules for the qualifications and admission of proper persons to-be advocates, vakils and attorneys, and empowers the High Court to remove or suspend from practice on reasonable cause advocates, vakils or attorneys, and enacts thus:

No person whatsoever but such advocates, vakils or attorneys shall be allowed to act or to plead for, or on behalf of any suitor in the said High Court, except that any suitors shall be allowed to appear, plead or act on his own behalf or on behalf of a co-suitor.

6. These two clauses are sufficient to dispose of the respondent’s claim and in addition, Section 8 of the Bar Councils Act is equally definite. It is as follows:

No person shall be entitled as of right to practise in any High Court unless his name is entered in the roll of the advocates of the High Court maintained under this Act; provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply to any attorney of the High Court.

7. Section 9 empowers the Bar Council with the previous sanction of the High Court to make rules to regulate the admission of persons to be advocates of the High Court. It must be observed that Section 8 is not limited to the right to ‘plead’ but to the right to ‘practise’. The Legal Practitioners Act is similarly decisive as regards the mofussil Courts. The answer to Question No. 1 is so clear that no further reference to statutes or decided oases is necessary and it must be in the negative.

8. The respondent’s contention regarding Question No. 2 is based on the claim that because of his power of attorney he stands in the same position as that of an advocate holding a vakalat by reason of Order 39 of the Original Side Rules. Rule 1 of that Order prohibits a pleader from appearing, pleading or acting in any suit unless be has filed his vakalat in Court in accordance with the rules and bis appointment continues under Rule 2 until the death of his client or it is revoked under Rule 3, which provides that the appointment may be revoked by an order upon a Master’s Summons in Chambers. Under Rule 2-A, if there is already a pleader on record, a pleader proposing to file an appointment in the suit may not do so unless he produces the written consent of the pleader on record or unless, where the consent of such pleader is refused, he obtains the special permission of the Court; and Rule 5 prevents a party who has filed an appointment of a pleader from appearing before the Court except in the absence of his pleader or to make any application or do any act in person so long as the appointment is in force; and there are similar provisions in the Appellate Side Rules. By reason of these rules the respondent claims that as his power of attorney authorizing him to appear in Court and plead on behalf of Krishnammal has not been revoked, she is not entitled to give an appointment to Mr. T.R. Srinivasa Aiyangar to act for her. But as an agent under a power of attorney has no right of audience in Court, it follows that the power of attorney authorizing him to plead is of no force whatsoever and upon that ground alone his contention must fail. But quite apart from that difficulty, there is no warrant whatever for putting a power of attorney given to a recognized agent to conduct proceedings in Court in the same category as a vakalat given to a legal practitioner, though probably the latter may also be described as a power of attorney. The very rules upon which the respondent relies show that such a power of attorney or appointment as it is called is confined only to pleaders, that is, those who have a right to plead in Courts; and Question 2 must therefore also be answered in the negative.

9. Question 3 raises some important points and, as it is drafted, does not present any difficulty. Obviously a power of attorney agent cannot carry on ‘business’ as a solicitor or attorney. To carry on business in such capacity is to practise. What exactly the word ‘practise’ used in Section 8, Bar Councils Act, means is not defined in the Act but it certainly must be taken to mean and include everything that a legal practitioner does as such in the High Court such as Question 3 refers to, namely, drafting, engrossing and filing plaints, Judge’s summons, affidavits and generally issuing legal process, and although it is not necessary to say what would constitute carrying on a ‘business’, and each case would depend upon its facts, a clear case of it would be where an agent has made a habit of doing so, though even one instance might be sufficient, or if an agent were to take business premises and to hold himself out as a law agent prepared to act in such matters for remuneration. Even one isolated act has in England been held to constitute “acting as a solicitor” rendering persons guilty of such conduct liable to be dealt with Under Section 26, Solicitors Act of 1860, for contempt of Court: In re Ainsworth; Ex parte Incorporated Law Society (1906) 2 KB 103. In that case an unqualified person gave as agent for the defendant in an action the notice of appearance to the writ required by Order 12, Rule 9 of the Supreme Court Rules, to be given by the defendant to the plain. tiff or his solicitor and he was held to be noting in contravention of Section 2, Solicitors Act of 1843, which prohibits any unqualified person from “acting as a solicitor” or “carrying on any proceeding” in the superior Courts. There, the unqualified person does not appear to have done this for remuneration at all and there does not seem to be any reason why even one isolated instance here should not suffice to constitute carrying on business or practising. As it stands, therefore, Question 3 has clearly to be answered in the negative also.

10. In conclusion, we would add the following general observations with regard to what the claim put forward by the respondent really amounts to. It is that he should be accorded all the rights and privileges which are enjoyed by members of the legal profession whose qualifications for admission to its rank are laid down in the rules made by the Bar Council with the sanction of the High Court, and whose (professional conduct thereafter is regulated by rules of practice and professional etiquette and who are subject to the disciplinary control of the High Court; whereas the respondent need possess no qualifications whatsoever as regards education and character and is not bound by any rules of professional conduct or etiquette and is not subject to the disciplinary control of the High Court or of any one; and there can be no better example than this case itself affords of the highly objectionable result such a claim may lead to, and actually has led to here, because the respondent claims to be remunerated by his principal for his services in question and before us stated that the condition regulating his payment is that he is to receive it only if the result of the proceedings is successful but not otherwise. On his own admission, this is a transaction which, if entered upon by a legal practitioner, would at once render him liable to strong disciplinary action, for to engage in speculative litigation is a grave breach of professional conduct. Yet his claim is that he is free to undertake such business and this is only one example of probable resultant evils.

More Under CA, CS, CMA


  1. t.v.sreekantan says:

    The respected Prime Minister of India when was the Chief Minister of Gujarat, the Government of Gujarat has authorised
    Sales-tax Practitioners,Legal Practitioiners,Cost Accountants and Chartered
    Accountants to conduct Audit under section 63 of Gujarat Valued Added Tax Act.

  2. t.v.sreekantan says:

    The respected Prime Minister of India when was the Chief Minister of Gujarat, the Government of Gujarat has authorised
    Sales-tax Practitioners,Legal Practitioiners,Cost Accountants and Chartered
    Accountants to conduct Audit under section 63 of Gujarat Valued Added Tax Act.

  3. A.K.Mehta says:

    No point in discussing 1937 decision when I T Act 1961 has allowed C A to appear and argue u/s 288 of the I T Act and M.P Court has also granted stay on stay against this decision.

  4. Advocate Jitendra Sharma says:

    M.P. High Court in Writ Petition No. 5997/2013 granted stay on 24.06.2013 and restricted to all, other than advocates before appellate authority prescribed under M.P. VAT Act. Thereafter on 27.06.2013 the divisional bench on the ground of the CA institute and Tax Practitioner association not party in the said petition granted stay on stay. the said petition continue..

  5. sbboob says:

    sir, this is a very old can not work today. because things have changed materially. every revenue laws are based on accounts only,and chartered accountants are the experts in accouts definately.even the writ petition of rajsthan tax bar will not work

  6. G N Sharma says:

    You are over looking meaning of the words “Practice of law” and “Appearance” which has been interpreted by various Hon’ble High Courts. first you should read judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Lawyers Collective V/S Bar Council of India, and another judgment of the Hon,ble Madras High Court in the case of A.K. Balaji V/S Government of India, in both the judgments “Practice of Law” has been discussed in detail.

  7. Sauvik says:

    “Income Tax Act [section 288(2)(iv) ] specifically permits CAs to appear before Income Tax Authorities including Tribunals and CCIT have no say in it…………… Hence This petition is nothing more than a waste of paper……. my father is an Income Tax Authority too…… n trust me Advocates comes nowhere near CAs when it is a matter of tax laws.its basically an accounting law nd dear advocates are illiterate in accountancy…………. Sorry if that had offence…….

  8. MANDEEP SINGH says:

    we are agree chartered accountants & other practioners & advcotes doing practice since 10 yeras have very good knowledge of taxation laws & accounts.

    but advocates are law professionals & chartered accountants accounting professional .Both professions are very reputed professions.
    I request to both professionals be master in their own profession.

  9. BSKRAO says:

    As the issue is question has been declared by Supreme Court in SLP (Civil)
    No(s) 17150-17154/2012 Dt.04.07.2012 in the case of Bar Council of India Vs
    A.K.Balaji & Ors., it is the law of land under Article 141 of Indian constitution
    & binding on all throughout the territory of India [BSKRAO, [email protected]]

  10. SRIKRISHNA says:

    ONLY SOLUTION for the above problem is that Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India should seriously consider the issue in question & come out with Tax Agent Service Act in the lines of Australia or Tax Practitioners Bill in the lines of South Africa, bringing all the Tax Professionals with varied qualification under one roof, without discrimination. The above issue in question should be highlighted as preamble to TAS/TP Bill. Tax Professionals governed by various professional bodies should invariably seek registration under TAS/TPB, if they wants to practice tax law. Our esteemed Govt. of Karnataka seriously considering the issue in question. [SRIKRISHNA, Auditor & Tax Advocate, [email protected]]

  11. BSKRAO says:

    As the issue in question has been “declared” by Supreme Court in the case of Bar Council of India Vs A.K.Balaji in SLP (Civil)No(s) 17150-17154/2012 Dt.04.7.2012,
    this amounts to declared law under Article 141 of Indian Constitution & binding on all throughout the territory of India.

  12. SRIKRISHNA says:

    Only solution for the above problem is that Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India should seriously consider the issue in question & come out with Tax Practitioners Bill in the lines of Tax Agent Service Act of Australia or in the lines of Tax Practitioners Bill of South Africa, bringing all the Tax Professionals with varied qualifications under one roof without discrimination on mentioning the above issue as preamble to Tax Practitioners Bill (Tax Professionals governed by various bodies, if they wants to practice tax law, should take registration). Our esteemed Govt. of Karnataka is sensitive enough & seriously considering the issue in question.

  13. MANDEEP SINGH says:

    my friends CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS,advocates &BANKERS
    L want to give advice to CA’S pl study section 467,468&471 of IPC because in present time it is common practice from chartered accounts, they are stamped such kinds of balance sheets which are not related actual position of business for bank purpose by writing information provided by assessee.

    Dear sir such kinds acts can create problem for you under above mentioned sections of IPC.
    IN WHICH PUNISHMENT MAY BE FOR LIFE IMPRISONMENT. so for it is my advice pl read such section before signing any balance sheet for bank purposes.

  14. Ramesh Kumar Thakur says:

    MANDEEP SINGH I am agree with you,
    March 9, 2013 At 3:13 PM
    as per section 45 of advocates act 1961 if any person not authorized before any court or authority under advocates act 1961 for practice of law.
    ” But such act is done by any person he will be punished with term for six months.”

    other practitioner under income tax, “they are fulfilling conditions of advocates Act 1961. It was not matter of tax advocates but it was matter advocate profession”

  15. MANDEEP SINGH says:

    I want introduce another interesting matter on income tax law. under income tax section 44AB first time in 1984-85 introduced according to this section every person get audit their accounts whose turnover 40 Lack in year.
    But in present time 1 crore whenever inflation since 1984 upto 25 times increased according that audit ceiling should be 25*4000000= 10 crore.
    as per income tax act 1961 inflation index in 1984 is 125 and in 2011-12 is 785
    according to that audit ceiling should be 4000000*785/125= 25120000.
    net profit u/s 44AD Reduced from 8% to 3% due to competition in business.
    asseessee need to come forward to reduce expenses of business.

  16. CA. Mukesh Saran says:

    To qualify for appearance as an authorised representative as prescribed under Sec. 288(2) of the Income Tax Act, he should be:

    “(i) A person related to the assessee in any manner, or a person regularly employed by the assessee; or (ii) Any officer of a scheduled bank with which the assessee maintains a current account or has other regular dealings; or (iii) Any legal practitioner who is entitled to practise in any civil court in India; or (iv) An accountant; or (v) Any person who has passed any accountancy examination recognised in this behalf by the Board; or (vi) Any person who has acquired such educational qualifications as the Board may prescribe for this purpose”.

    `Accountant’ in Sec. 288(2)(iv) is a Chartered Accountant or any other Accountant or auditor recognised under Sec. 226 of the Companies Act, 1956, which recognises besides a Chartered Accountant only a firm of which all the partners are Chartered Accountants.

    Thus Act has recoganised CAs for appearing before Income tax Authorities. CCIT or any other authority has no say in this.


    It is surprised to note that Mr. Gulab Rohit has mentioned the word “Practice” in Section 288 of the Income Tax Act’ 1961, whereas, there the word is Appearence, which is quite different then the word Practice, there is no word practice under the imcome tax Act’ 1961, as under Section 29 and 33 of the Advocate Act’ 1961, therefore, the words should be presented here as they are in the statute.the word “Appearence” and ‘Practice” have been decided by various Hon’ble High Courts, for example, judgment of the Hon’ble Gujrat High court reported in AIR 2001 page 279 is relevant here for further discussion.

    Girdhari Lal Sharma
    Jaipur, Rajasthan.

  18. Sathya says:


  19. Rajendra says:

    Just look at the impact it will have if this is accepted. They say only advocates with BAR council can practice any law , which effectively means that not only Income tax it is Companies act, Salea Tax, Excise , Customs, banking Acts for that matter any law , which will directly hit not only the CA, CS, ICWA, but all the tax practioners , consultants you name them and they are hit, save the advocates.

    And who knows this can also be accepted considering the fact that all TOP politicians are advocates and a little loobying and things are done ……. GOD save us.

  20. MANDEEP SINGH says:

    audit of accounts shouldn’t be restricted up to only CA’S & advocates have vast knowledge of accounting system & advocates also should be given powers to audit the accounts. otherwise should leave on assessee he wants to audit his account or not.

  21. MANDEEP SINGH says:

    as per section 45 of advocates act 1961 if any person not authorized before any court or authority under advocates act 1961 for practice of law. but such act is done by any person he will be punished with term for six months.

    other practitioner under income tax, they are fulfilling conditions of advocates Act 1961. It was not matter of tax advocates but it was matter advocate profession.

  22. naavi says:

    I would like to place my humble views on this subject for debate:

    The circumstances of the cited case does not represent the universe.

    “Right to appoint an Agent” is a fundamental right and should not be overruled by legislations (such as the Advocate’s act) to protect individual business such as a profession.

    Such legislations are mainly to prevent quacks entering the business by which citizens are to be protected.

    Hence the Court says that no body should “Practice” i.e: carry on such activity as the main profession. This cannot be applied to an individual stray representation of a CA for a client.

    Also CAs are experts in their own right and if a client thinks he can do a better job than an advocate then it is his right.

    It is also a part of the judgement that the Court needs to agree to allow representation by the POA holder who is not an advocate.

    This provision gives an opportunity to the Court to consider if the POA holder is capable of representing the client’s interest. If not, it can advise the principal client to hire an alternate person.

    In such an event, it is open to the litigant to appoint another person to represent him or to satisfy the Court that he considers the earlier representative as his best choice. Court may consider if there is any play of “Undue influence” or “Coercion” and if not it may agree.

    In the cited case the POA holder was challenging a later appointment of an advocate by Vakalat and hence his claim was perhaps not tenable. The client had superceded the POA with the Vakalat.

    Presently litigations are getting complicated and there is a role for experts in different fields to participate in the process of getting “Justice”. ADRs are replacing Court room battles. In such circumstances, Professional rights cannot be allowed to defeat the basic function of the Courts which is to “Render Justice”.

    Advocates need to learn to move with the times. In fact some of the best advocates have also been best Chartered Accountants.

  23. G N Sharma says:

    The Advocate Act’ 1961, and the Income Tax Act’ 1961 also for the whole country of India, it is not a matter for Rajasthan only, it is for the whole Country of India.

  24. GIRISH says:

    An exam must for any person practicing to determine one’s knowledge about law. As CAs are qualified for audit but are writing accounts which also required specific knowledge I think it’s not sole property of CA.

  25. MANDEEP SINGH says:

    CA’S are authorized under income tax law to do statuary audit under section 44AB of income tax act 1961, it is clear they are working for govt. then in which capacity they represent to the client, it is well established rule in courts that an advocate couldn’t represent both petitioner & accused.

  26. MANDEEP SINGH says:

    in civil courts other persons can appear with permission court to produce needful information to court to decide the case. but their appearance not as an pleader or advocate.
    same as other persons permitted under income tax laws etc. If you agree income tax is a law, then pl tell in which capacity others can be act as an advocate under income tax law.

    so pl do act to everyone according their profession, interference in other professions not genuine.

  27. GULAB ROHIT says:

    This is meaningless… This is going against Income Tax Act,1961, because in this Act, section 288 permits to allow to do practice in income tax dept.What about ITP (Income Tax Practitioners ) which are registered u/s. 288 of IT Act, 1961 ? AS per my knowlege the Income Tax Department and Bar Council of India jointly have to prepare one professional examination and this exam must be passed for practice before Income Tax Authorities in various level i.e. I.T.O., ACIT, DY.CIT, CIT, CIT Appeals, ITAT, HIgh Court, Supereme Court,etc,so professional person can do the income tax proceedings. It is my personal idea.

  28. MANDEEP SINGH says:

    As per section 29 advocates act 1961 advocates only recognized class to practice of law and main object to establish institute of chartered accountants to produce professional accountant even that another law professional both professions have different objects & should be remain different.

    An advocate couldn’t be auditor as vested to CA’S
    & CA’S couldn’t be law professional under income tax it is a back door entry to CA’S in profession of law.

  29. subhashchandrapodder says:

    There should not be any place for Practicing Chartered Accountants to play ( save and except audit ?
    CA. Subhash Chandra Podder , FCA

  30. Sudeshna says:

    When exclusivity of certain areas are reserved for CAs even though other professionals are equally and more qualified to discharge that job,there is an uproar from CA community in the name of professional standards,well qualified if any talk of allowing such areas to others is even murmured.In this case the BAR council is protecting and enhancing their practicing area through legal means unlike ICAI who indulges in back door lobbying and vehement opposition against other professional bodies in the power corridors of MOF,MCA,Parliamentary Standing committee on finance thereby engaging MPs/Union Ministers who are also members of ICAI or their sympathizers both in ruling and main opposition parties.

  31. RAVI says:

    This is meaningless.. This is going against Income Tax Act, 1961 itself, which permits different classes of professionals to appear before various IT authorities and ITAT as well..

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

June 2021