Advocate  B.S.K.RAO

Advocate B.S.K.RAOCBDT has provided Tax Audit Data to ICAI based on the returns e-filed during the financial year 2010-11. This has been published in one of the leading Private Website for CAs on 16th day of November 2011. Herein CBDT has provided information about total number of tax audit returns filed in respect of financial year 2010-11 as 16,16,096 and were conducted by 59,472 auditors throughout India. Furnishing this as proof, I have filed RTI Application before Under Secretary (TPL-III), Central Board of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi-110001 and sought following information:-

(1)  Copy of the letter issued to ICAI in respect of the above matter.

(2) Also provide similar information relating to the next financial year 2011-12 with particulars of total number of tax audit return filed & number of auditors conducting the same.

In response to the above application CBDT has not provided the information sought even on 1st Appeal before Deputy Secretary (ITA-II), Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi-110001. I preferred 2nd Appeal before CIC, CIC issued directions to CBDT to provide information sought by me, to promote transparency in framing policy, procedure in administration of Income-Tax Act. Copy of the CIC order furnished below:-



Room No. 307, 2nd Floor, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan

Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066


Telephone No.: +91-11-26105682

File No.CIC/RM/A/2013/000460

 Appellant :   Shri.B.S.K.Rao, Shimoga

Public Authority :    OSD(ITA.II) and DS(ITA.II), CBDT,  New Delhi

Date of Hearing :  11.10.2013

Date of Decision :  11.10.2013

Heard today, dated 11.10.2013 through video conferencing,

Appellant is present.

The Public Authority is absent.


1. Vide RTI dt.8.12.12, appellant had sought information on 2 points relating to tax audit data for FY 2011-12.

2. CPIO/OSD(ITA.II) vide letter dt.18.1.2013, informed appellant that the information sought is not maintained in this office and hence cannot be provided.

3. An appeal was filed on 22.1.13 requesting that his RTI may be transferred to the appropriate authority who have this information.

4. AA vide order dt.27.2.13, directed US(ITA-II)/CPIO to re-examine the matter and furnish requisite information in respect of query no.1 while response in respect of query no.2 of CPIO was upheld.

5. Submissions made by the appellant were heard. Appellant submitted that he has not been provided information sought by him in his RTI in respect of his query 2(b), when similar information has been provided to ICAI.


6. The Commission finds that the information sought by the appellant is of statistical nature which should be available with the Directorate of IT(Systems). We direct CPIO to provide information sought by the appellant within three weeks from date of receipt of the order. If the CPIO is not the repository of the information, then it should be transferred to the appropriate CPIO, under information to the commission and the appellant.

The appeal is disposed of,


(Rajiv Mathur)

Central Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy forwarded to:-


Department of Revenue,

North Block, New Delhi.

The DS(ITA.II) and First Appellate Authority


Department of Revenue,

Room No.247A, North Block,

New Delhi

Sri B.S.K.Rao,

Auditor & Tax Advocate,

BDKRAO, Beside SBI, Tilak Nagar,

SHimoga, Karnataka State-577201

(Raghubir Singh)

Deputy Registrar



More Under CA, CS, CMA


  1. SELVARAJ R says:


  2. B.S.K.RAO says:


    You are the only person from CA fraternity who understood my concern & theme of all my articles published in this blog. I appreciate your effort to highlight the reality of the practical situation prevailing on date & wrongful action of ICAI which goes against the economic development of our country. In fact, ICAI is not even 1% concerned about our country is evident from each & every action and write-ups in their journals.

  3. sudhir kumar bhardwaj says:

    sudhir bhardwaj says;
    I had read your legal openion regarding the the article and aslo appreciate for being the approched to icai and approched in the court of central vill commission.
    this kind of work is higly appriciatable.

    with regards

  4. MANDEEP SINGH says:

    First of all, I thanks to Mr. Bsk Rao. Due to articles of Mr. Rao we interlinked with other members through tax guru websire. I respect heartily of MR. BSK RAO, BALU & ANAND JI & MR. PARVEEN KUMAR JI & OTHERS.
    Every professional & person have freedom to put his views in public.
    Now I come to point, we loosing judicial system day by day in our country. Reason new tribunals are established known as quasi judicial authorities.
    Now I want to explain main difference between quasi judicial & judicial courts.

    Judicial courts:- there is dispute between two parties, which is heard by the court & provide justice to parties.

    Quasi Judicial authorities:- There is no dispute between two parties & dispute between government & assessee. Quasi judicial body is working on part of
    Government. Pl give me answer If tribunals are not court than there is no justice to assessee in our country.
    Present matter NCLT under company act 2013.

  5. s prakash says:

    Sri Saravanan,

    Your above article is really an eye opener for the ICAI and also to the Finance Ministry.Your silver line wordings are the warning to the revenue and to the ICAI.Do not ration the tax audit and the tax practice only to one class of professionals and allow it to grow in line with the economic growth of the country.If tax assessess are not increasing due to number of hurdles in filing the returns itself, how the revenue can expect the growth of number of assessees in the country.Think in larger term of the Country and not in particular to any class of tax professionals and also keeping in view of the much expected GST and Code.

  6. Balu & Anand says:

    Dear Sri BSK Rao,

    Your arguments are shockingly illogical and display a childish attitude. I am sorry to say it is not me but you who has to be realistic.

    According to you the only reason that a non-CA is not entering the tax field is because there is a law that only a CA can certify the reports. A Non CA is NOT COMPETENT to sign Balance Sheets. Period.

    You talk as it is the divine right of every person to hold himself as a tax practitioner and financial expert and certify the truth and fairness of financial statements. I think this aspect was discussed Ad nauseam in your earlier article and you are just refusing to accept the reasonable demands of a civilized society. There is a place for every man in the society and it is best left to him to compete honestly and make a living for himself.

    If you are not inclined to accept these basic rules, I have another request from people like you. Can you please enlighten me as to how you people plan to increase the tax base to 75% of the population in our country? A country in which 70% of the population is dependent on agriculture and allied activities which are exempt from tax and of the remaining, 30% are unemployed, another 60% are either children or pensioners or housewives !!

    Please grow up and be a mature professional. If you had been as persistent and spent as much time in studying for CA as you are wasting on this topic, I am sure you would also have passed CA exam with flying colours.

  7. B.S.K.RAO says:

    Dear Balu & Anand Sir,

    Lets talk about Income-Tax practice keeping in mind the reality of the situation prevailing in India.

    1. In addition tax audit certificate there are 45 plus CA certificates in Income-Tax Act. In view of this new Non-CA’s are not entering tax profession. Due to 45 tax audit ceiling existing experienced Non-CA’s handling tax audit cases since more than 2 decades have to roam around in search of empty slots of CA Signature during due dates to give compliance in the case of their clients.

    2. All persons clearing CA will not practice. Majority of practicing CA’s are concentrated in metro’s to catch hold off big fish. Even holding your way of calculation & the similar arguments furnished by ICAI to CBDT in Para No.(a) Page No.4 of its letter Dt.29.01.2013 bearing No.DTC/2012-13/REP-24 to dupe the Deptt. is correct, Deptt. should confirm the fact that whether such CA’s are evenly spread throughout India to cover all the cases, so that assesses could identify such empty slots of CA’s to take services ?

    3. To sum-up, in view of 46 Plus CA Certificate in Income-Tax Act, new Non-CA Tax Professionals are not entering tax profession on one hand & the total number of practicing CA’s are not increasing on the other hand (Considering the output & death rate of practicing CA’s). In this situation, how come Deptt. is seeking voluntary compliance by way of TV Advertisements etc.? Why our Central Govt. is not sensitive enough to understand the prevailing situation ?

    4. In order to widen genuine tax base of assessee to reach international standard of 70% to 80% of population under tax net as aginst 2% of population prevailing in India, Deptt. should delete all CA Certificates from Income-Tax Act to meet the international taxation policy standard.

  8. Balu & Anand says:

    ” MANDEEP SINGH says:

    our country have population more than one hundred crore. If we want to bring 25 to 50 crore people under tax net then we can’t rely upon 60000 CA’S.
    Minimum 10 lac professional required for bring more assessees under tax net.
    so for reports under income tax law need to omitted.”

    Yeah! Whats the problem in getting 10 lakhs or 50 lakhs professionals? Anybody can call himself a tax professional. The problem is in getting 25 crore people to pay tax. You guys get them. we are here to sign the audit reports 🙂

  9. saravanan says:


    All business/profession strive for growth. However here growth is curtailed and unjustifiably ceiling is fixed against growth
    The elected members should reach out to the members’ fraternity in case of policy decisions of this magnitude that affects the practice.
    The ceiling of 45 tax audits treats all types of assesses at par like,
    Listed companies
    Unlisted public and private limited companies
    Partnership firms
    Trusts running educational institutions and healthcare business
    Irrespective of turnover
    There are 3 types of cities
    TIER II – Cities like Meerut, Pune, Coimbatore, Tirupur
    TIER III – others
    The audit fees will depend on the clientele and the city in which the business is being done.
    The regular fees for tax audit in TIER II and TIER III cities are in the range of about 5000 to 10000. As directed by the ICAI one cant take up audit of more than 45 cases, which means the income is curbed at the maximum band of Rs. 4.5 lacs and no growth above that is permitted.
    Factoring expenses like rent, electricity, SALARY and other administrative expenses, the lonely CA will be a left with a pay scale equal to a nationalized bank peon.
    We are not asking the ICAI to supply us with clients. We do earn our clients with years of practice, trust and references. We are not permitted to solicit or advertise. Now the clients come to us and we have to decline additional clients because of the ceiling which is at par with auditors of I.T. Companies, fortune 500 companies and highest tax payer companies.
    In a time when colleagues of alternate profession like salaried people in other industries draw salaries in millions of rupees, its embarrassing and frustrating to fight for our survival and career. And this toil does not end here. We have to constantly fight with
    Income tax department
    Sales tax department
    Excise and Service tax department
    Companies act department

    The 45 tax audit ceiling includes and treats companies in the likes of
    Equally and at par with
    Normal trader with basic books of accounts
    What equality and justice is there in treating companies with turnover of
    Rs. 6000 crore and above [or for the matter Rs. 60 crore]
    Rs. 60 lacs
    Can Gold be treated at par with pebbles!!
    Income tax act does not specify a ceiling on the number of tax audit unlike companies act. This kind of apartheid may pave the way for alternate professionals like CWA s and CS to take up the tax audits. Our own policy will lead to downfall of our own profession.

    There is no information about:
    What was the input that ICAI had before fixing the ceiling?
    Which year was the ceiling fixed?
    What is the demographic spread of CA s
    What is the demographic spread of income tax assesses
    What if a particular city does not have the requisite number of CA s to handle the number of tax audits in that city
    Whether a panel is available or helping assessee to find CA s for tax audits?

    The only motivation of CA s venturing into practice in TIER III cities is tax audits. If this kind of ceiling is put in place, what is the motivation to take up practice? Why would a CA investing tens of years in practice turn away from a client, not because he does not have the skills to audit, but because his boss, the ICAI, won’t allow him to discharge his professional duties because of the ceiling?

    Its time that the “elected” members, who were supported and elected by us, should start to support us back.

    ICAI acknowledges that 90% of pass outs are opting for industry and only 10% are opting for practice. The supply of CA s in practice is precariously dwindling. With inflation and growth in business the turnover is increasing and consequently will result in increased in tax audits. Supply of CA s is falling, demand in increasing.

    A CA who has built his office with tens of years of labour cannot be reasonably expected to decline new clients due to this infamous tax audit ceiling. This will only result in surrogate auditing, where newly qualified CA s will be sitting at a stretch and signing the surplus tax audits of the other CA.

    This results in unnecessarily penalizing the assessee with additional expenses in the nature of additional fees to the signing CA. this tax audit ceiling has resulted in two types of CA s. one the tax auditor and the other signing auditor. Clients will tend to resist paying the extra fees for the sign. We have to bargain and hard sell our case pleading with the client or suffer the losses.

    How many of the members in practice will motivate their children to venture into practice? The result will be a thumping “ZERO” save the negligible percentile of big firms who serve only the cream of clients paying heavy fees in TIER I cities.

    Practice has never had its charm. Now it will lose its sustainability for sure.

    Why should one forego his tax audit to a new comer?
    Why should one lose his client earned from years of hard labour and reputation?

    There is no fair play and justice. Main stay in TIER II TIER III cities is tax practice. With 45 tax audits and assuming an upper fee of Rs. 10,000/- per client, can a CA office survive with Rs. 4.5 lac fee per year.

    Equality in all cases is not justice. ICAI proposes to give 45 nos. of tax audit to each member. 45 nos. of copper is not equal to 45 nos. of gold. One no. of WIPRO/INFOSYS/LISTED PUBLIC LTD CO is not equal to one no. of small time trader in terms of work/fee

    Is there a panel of CA s with list of nos. of tax audits he has on hand?
    What will happen when in a particular city, there is a shortage of CA to handle tax audits?
    Where will an assessee roam to find a CA with tax audits to spare? City to city !!
    What about client and CA relationship, confidentiality, rationale of charging fee?
    The lesser the nos. of tax audits to spare, the greater will be the fees?
    An assessee will be left to choose CA not based on his experience, skill but based on the nos. of tax audits he has to spare??
    Is it just to decline a prospective client or my client of many years to walk out since he has come in as 46th case?
    What will happen to group concerns with new/additional tax audits? Should the CA show the door since his ceiling is breached? This will result in practice showing the door – retirement or early exit for CA from profession
    Does ICAI reckon that this will lead only to surrogate auditing? New comers are just acting as rubber stamps in tax audit reports and only the existing CA s are doing the entire audit work?
    ICAI has decided to give same number of units to all CA s. Clients with the nature of work with all its application of statutes, accounting and auditing standards and remuneration can be classified into, for example gold, silver and bronze. Now ICAI says 45 number of gold is equal to 45 number of bronze/silver. CA s in tier 2 and tier 3 cities strive and work hard to collect enough bronze/silver to matchup to atleast 1 gold. But the ICAI says 45 gold = 45 silver = 45 bronze. Equality in all cases does not mean justice. This was duly understood and reckoned even by the architects of Indian constitution who gave some reservation / benefits to the underprivileged.

    Is the number of man hours spent for tax audit for BHEL, WIPRO, TCS = A & Co, a normal trading [proprietary concern or partnership concern] with 1.50 crore or 10 crore firm
    Accounting and auditing standards
    Transfer pricing
    International taxation

    Whether real time panel is available location wise with name of CA s with their pending number of tax audit assignments they may undertake. The panel should be updated real-time like that of silver, gold or other bullion rates.

    A person can choose a medical practitioner or a legal practitioner on basis of relationship, skill and integrity. But a tax assessee will be left to choose a CA based on pending number of tax audits he can accommodate. Only number of vacancy will be the decider.

    The busy CA will slowly lose his existing clients’ additional business and existing client themselves in due course. The new CA in town will be suddenly in demand and will charge northwards, since he is free and can accommodate “Tax audits”.

  10. MANDEEP SINGH says:

    our country have population more than one hundred crore. If we want to bring 25 to 50 crore people under tax net then we can’t rely upon 60000 CA’S.
    Minimum 10 lac professional required for bring more assessees under tax net.
    so for reports under income tax law need to omitted.

  11. Ganesh says:

    Is it possible to get information from the CBDT about the number of Tax audits signed by a particular Chartered Accountant? (Also for earlier periods from which the e-filing of tax audit is made mandatory)

  12. Balu & Anand says:

    16.69 Lakhs divided by nearly 60000 CAs is definitely less than 45 per CA. With limit increased to 1 Crore now, it looks like there was no need for all that noise and fury which you guys indulged in. !!

Cancel reply

Leave a Comment to MANDEEP SINGH

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

Search Posts by Date

October 2020