When a Chartered Accountant is performing a statutory audit, he is acting as an agency of the revenue department. Many times, we have seen that the dealers’/assessee’s assessment has been made on the basis of the auditors’ report. It is very well settled doctrine of the law that in any given case, one person can not be the solicitor for both the parties.

Now, when a CA is performing the statutory audit (which is presumed as acting on governments behalf); then how can he defend the assessee for his own cause and act?

There should be made provision so as to restrict the person who has conducted the audit, to represent the dealer/assessee in the assessment or other proceedings before the revenue department (it may be Income Tax Department or concerned VAT department).

That C.A should not be allowed to represent those dealers/assessees in the assessment proceedings of whose accounts he has done statutory audit under Income Tax Act or VAT Act. A different C.A or an advocate should be allowed to represent the assessee/dealer in such cases.

Members are requested to provide their unbiased views for healthy discussion.

Discussion initiated by:

Amit Bajaj Advocate, Jalandhar.

Email: [email protected]

Cell No +919815243335

Tags:

More Under CA, CS, CMA

0 Comments

  1. Devinder Jain says:

    Further, it has been seen in the past that the Advocates have started behaving like trade unionist and try to capture whole of the field relating to law. The accounting systems are law in themselves, and many principals of accounts and audit are layed down by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, which have their own judicial force, and Advocates have no knowledge of them, so can it be said that Advocates should not be allowed to comment upon or asked to defend the accounts of an assessee,

  2. Devinder Jain says:

    The legislature in his own wisdom has cast the duty on a person to get his accounts audited and has also provided the rules and procedure for conducting the Audit, and has also provided that when a person is caused to appear before the Authorities under the specific enactment whether he has to appear in person or through any other person. Since legislature has the interest in revenue, the legislature knows the best who to save the interests of the revenue. We have no business to comment upon the wisdom of the legislature while sitting outside the legislature.

  3. CA Lalit Munoyat says:

    Dear Adv. Amit Bajaj
    Please don’t close the debate without answering the following questions:
    1) I had raised the validity of your question in the perspective of ethical and unethical system of the society. Perhaps you knew the answer but did not want to agree with the obvious and remained salient.

    2) One gentleman has passed comments so as to say that the CA’s have become manipulators of data and that they have lost their moral value. Mr. Bajaj, please explain if it were to be the case , then why the Bench A of the Hon’ble Apex Court of the nation headed by Justice SH Kapadia while ruling in favour of HCL Comnet Systems & Services said: “The AO has to accept the authenticity of the accounts maintained in accordance with the provisions of Part II and Part III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, which are certified by the auditors and passes by the company in the general meeting. The AO does not have the jurisdiction to go beyond the net profit shown in the profit and loss account certified as above.” As a person of ultimate responsibility , tell us if you agree with the comments of the said gentleman or with the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case. If you agree with the comments of the gentleman then you are undermining the authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, or if you agree with the ruling of the Hon,ble SC ( which in any case you are bound to accept) then it is established beyond doubt that CAs are not the manipulators of data because , had it been so then the Hon’ble SC would not have upheld the sanctity of the accounts audited and reported by the CAs and restraining the Dept. of Income Tax from tinkering with the audited results. Mr. Bajaj, as a respected member of honorable legal profession, you must come forward and say sorry for the unethical comments of the gentleman.

    3) Your comments that “The C.As are not the judicious persons in any way their main field is the finance and taxation. Lawyers are the interpreters of the law they are taught how to interpret the law.” Is it so dear ?. If you had thought a little more then , perhaps you might not have passed such comments. For example, If a question of law is formulated and is put before the Hon’ble SC for its interpretation, and two most eminent lawyers known for their interpretation skills are defending their own interpretation and the Hon’ble SC rules in favour of one interpretation and reject the interpretation of the other eminent lawyer, does that mean that the loosing lawyer was not taught how to interpret the law. Very absurd proposition. Sorry Dear.
    4) One another gentleman has passed comments so as to say that “the reports are non committal and are useless in providing insight into the happenings in a Company. Appears to be a retrograde move unless it is an employment guarantee scheme for CAs and their ilk.”
    Everyone knows why a long legal battle was fought in the Hon’ble Bombay High Court for an order by the Hon’ble High Court to allow them the right to do the VAT audit under Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act. Who were seeking an employment guarantee scheme ?.

    5) Dear Amit you seem to have adopted contradictory proposition. On the one hand you say that “The C.As are not the judicious persons and that their main field is the finance and taxation. Lawyers are the interpreters of the law they are taught how to interpret the law.” If , as suggested by you, it were to be so then why the respected lawyer brothers were asking for a right to do VAT audit as stated above.
    6) Who are the better interpreter of laws and who not, is not to be decided by you but the same is decided by the law making authority of the nation i.e. the Members of Parliament. A new piece of legislation is not formulated overnight, but it has to go through various legal tests by the legal committees of the parliament, debate in the house, approval by the Members of the Upper House and the ultimate sanction by the Hon’ble President of the Nation. Having done so a new legislation was formulated to lighten the burden the High Court of the matters of taxation. The National Tax Tribunal law was formulated which permitted the CAs to represent the case before the NTT. Is it not the faith that the highest law making authority has reposed in the CAs fraternity ?. The matter is being fought tooth & nail by the Hon’ble Lawyer Brothers to prevent the right of representation before NTT by the CAs.? Who is seeking an employment guarantee scheme ?
    7) One more Ld. Advocate has observed that “ I think Advocates have more legal knowledge then C.A. In fact some C.A. in our country not know their clients case fully. So how they defend their clients. My view is that to represent a Assessment proceeding C.A’s should not be allowed. They do only Audit not represent any assessment proceeding successfully.”Pl. reconsider your observation in the light of the matter in para (3) above.
    8.) Mr. Bajaj , you have not at all explained the point in your comments. None is arguing just for the sake of argument. You have unnecessarily started this topic and now trying to avoid facing the counter comments by abruptly stating that the debate is over from your side.Pl. don’t raise such questions which you can’t yourself answer. From the various comments received , I am afraid to say, that you have caused a sort of acrimony between the Hon’ble Lawyer Brothers and respected CA fellow who otherwise share very good equations on the question of audit and representation.
    9) I seek an unconditional apology from my fellow lawyers who might have felt offended by my comments and assure them that I carry no acrimony , either personal or professional, towards them and I hold in extreme respect & honour. A sort of self discipline is the call of the hour. Thanks

  4. Adv. Barkha Agrawal says:

    Hello,

    I agree with u.Bcoz I think Advocates have more legal knowledge then C.A.In fact some C.A. in our country not know their clients case fully.So how they defend their clients.
    My view is that to represnt a Assessment proceeding C.A’s should not be allowed.They do only Audit not represnt any assessment proceeding successfully.

  5. CA Jai Kumar Jain says:

    The CAs are one of the most judicious professionals and performing well in audits as well as taxation, whether direct or indirect,and it is in the interest of revenue as well as assessee in all respect that CAs perform both responsibilities of same assessee.
    With due professional regards.
    CA JAI KUMAR JAIN
    Read more: https://www.taxguru.in/chartered-accountant/please-comment-should-cas-be-allowed-to-represent-the-assessee-in-assessment-proceedings.html#ixzz0lM9OHNFk

  6. Amit Bajaj Advocate says:

    The audit report under Income Tax Act may be used by any person But it is a report to the revenue and for the revenue only.

    Mr Rakesh the case you have mentioned about bills can never be compared to the question raised here. No reporting is done by any one in such case. The person asking for a bill is not an agent of the revenue but its the person who is collecting tax is the agent and he is in no case soliciting the revenue which an auditor C.A does in the given case. So no comparison here. Please think twice before giving an example.

    The C.As are not the judicious persons in any way their main field is the finance and taxation. Lawyers are the interpretors of the law they are taught how to interpret the law.

    I think that is why the topic seems to be stupid to those who dont know the intricacies of the law. Which a lawyer knows very well. I have nothing against the C.As. They are the most qualified persons in the field of finance accounting and taxation, no doubt about it. I respect every professional because he is contributing towards the growth of the nation.

    Mr Rakesh what ever your view may be you can stick to that but dont ask others to change their view if you cant understand other’s.

    I have very well explained my view point above in the comments I dont want to argue just for the sake of argument. I have started this topic for healthy discussion only. From my side its over now.

    Everybody is free to make his comments whatever he wants. Rest I leave to the moderators and the judiciousness of the people.

  7. rakesh kumar says:

    i strongly agree with Mr.Lalit Munoyat. this topic is mere waste of time,energy and resource. let us indulge ourselves into some healthy and knowledgeable arguments. every one of us should know to respect and appreciate others professions.

    And Mr.Amit Bajaj, please note that CA’s are not representing the government directly… Its their duty to Audit the Accounts of a company and Express their views as to the truthfulness and fairness.
    These financial statements audited by the CA’s are not only used by the Govt but also by the Pubic(Investors) and financial institutions…ect…now do you want to say that…CA’s are agents of bank…public…answer is no…they are no ones agent….just like any other user govt also uses the audited financial statements…

    Anyone who asks for a proper tax bill from the Vendor(seller) is an agent of the revenue…probably you Mr.Amit would have done that many a times…does that mean you are an agent of the revenue ( indirectly)…if yes then you should not take up any case against the “REVENUE dept”..this sounds very stupid right….

  8. CA Lalit Munoyat says:

    Dear Amit,
    Thanks for respecting my views on the matter raised by you irrespective of the fact whether it favour or oppose your views. Please feel no offensive of the words I used to describe the situation as they were purely professional and nothing personal. I would like to add a few more comments to my earlier comments.
    1) Every profession has a set of noble objectives to be achieved and for the achievement of the same a Code of Conduct is fixed. Every member of the concerned professional body is expected to strictly abide by the code of conduct to achieve the stated objective. It is with this view that the Hon’ble SC has perhaps passed the judgement referred to in my earlier comments. In an egalitarian society it is assumed that every objective has been achieved with ethical means unless proved otherwise. If that be the case then there need not be any question of auditing an auditor.

    2) However there are some members who bypass the code of conduct to achieve extra pecuniary gain in a very short period of time. To deal with such member every professional body has a Disciplinary Committee to deal with such unethical conduct. Dear Amit should you like to see the entire fraternity of the profession with suspicion just because a black sheep from the profession has been accused of unethical practice? An objective answer to this question may perhaps answer your stated question and one may feel there should not be any need for an auditor to audit another auditor.

    3) If you feel that the above proposition is not true then we should agree that the fault lies in the System of egalitarian society which has stooped down to such a level that one is compelled to feel that every professional activity has been carried out with unethical means unless proved otherwise. In such a situation it would be an futile exercise to let one unethical member to vet another unethical member. In such a situation what is required is to clean the entire system of openly professed unethical practices and this is a herculean task which can’t be completed overnight and need a group of persons with pure ethical background at the helm of the system.

    4) Lastly, considering the above arguments your question shall have no meaning in both types of Systems i.e. Unethical System and ethical system for the following reasons:

    a. In an ethical system of society such a question shall never arise and;

    b. In an unethical system a cheat vetting another cheat will lead to a situation where an unethical person tries to coat another unethical person with the qualities of pure ethics.

    Thanks Dear

  9. Amit Bajaj Advocate says:

    Dear Lalit Munoyat ji,

    you have given a detailed answer to the question I have in mind. I respect your views. There is no confusion between the audit and the representation.

    Your comment:
    “This is the call of his profession. I think the principle of natural justice need not be elaborated here as every violator has got an inherent right to defend himself against any penal proceedings and that is the second duty of the CA to do so to explain the situations which led to the violations”

    Certainly the call of the profession of an auditor is to reflect the true picture in the audit report from the audited record of an assessee. But the inherint right to defend oneself is not the right of the auditor C.A but is of the assessee concerned.

    That is what I am saying its not the second duty of the auditor C.A to defend the assessee concerned. The second duty of his is only to explain the results reflected by him in the audit report if so asked by the revenue.

    To elaborate further on my point i want to add the following:

    The audit report is an independent but a statutory report by the auditor to the revenue that the books of accounts of an assessee has been properly audited and it reflects the true profits and picture from the audited records of the assessee.

    Whether such report is accepted or not by the revenue that is a separate issue to be considered like on what grounds the audit report has been rejected whether for fault of the auditor or due to the non disclosure of true facts by the assessee to the auditor. But certainly the audit report is a reporting to and for the revenue to facilitate the assessment proceedings.

    The statutory mandate of audit has been provided under the Income Tax Act only to fulfill the purpose of curbing the chances of tax evasion. Hence i feel since the audit report is a reporting to the revenue by the auditor C.A he is representative of the revenue therefore the auditor C.A. should be barred from representing the assessee in the assessment proceedings, rather a different C.A. or an advocate or any other tax professional should pursue the matter in such case.

    We should not jump to the conclusion so quickly that it has not got any law point.

  10. Hari Khabrani says:

    CAs are not legal advisers. They are required statutorily or mandatory may be as per provisions of the Act if any, or as per the requirements of any law to go through the books of accounts of a particular party to certify whether or not those are subject to the application of provisions of any of the Acts. The certification on such books of accounts is the last actual act or may be called activity/duty of a Chartered Accountant as per the requirement and provisions of the Chartered Accountant’s Institution. Any irregularity or loss of governmental revenue/exchequer binds both herein the said CA and its party evolving impugned certification. Here in Income-tax Act the assessees are required to get the accounts audited u/s 44AB under certain circumstances and proviso(s) of section 44AB and get certification of an Account, here in the said Chartered Accountant and no more. Even , if so desired, the Income-tax authority may appoint the Chartered Accountant as per provisions of Income-tax for compulsory Auditing of accounts to deal on complicated books of account or irregular books of accounts to arrive at the accurate assessable income of an assessee and require the said so appointed CA to submit its accurate report. Under such factual facts and circumstances, the CA is neither a legal practitioner nor can be considered as legal advisor or the representative but only an accountant.
    As per the law practices in general before the judicious authorities, CAs are not legal Advisors or Practitioners. Rather the CA & party involved may be subject to the questionnaire that there happens irregularity in the books of accounts so produced before the said judicial authority.
    In case of any irregularity or loss of revenue, both may be held legally bound and responsible to answer and explain the circumstances and facts how was all happened, and subject to the relevant provisions of the Acts,if any, both may be show caused as to why action may not be taken against both.
    The question raised has some force to be implemented in the interest of public revenue and amendment of the provisions of Income-tax Act, related to who should be the real and actual legal advisor/representative of the assessee, during the judicial proceedings i.e assessment proceedings before the revenue officers/assessing officer/Authorities under the Income-tax Act.
    It is a clear question that once the irregular books of accounts are subjected to the certification by Accountant has nothing to deal on unless reveals any irregularity at later stage in the eyes of the law,is definitely questionable from both, here in the Party and its Chartered Accountant who is certifying those books of accounts not found genuine but produced before judicial officer duly certified by particular Chartered Accountant in consensus with the party.

  11. CA Lalit Munoyat says:

    It appears Mr. Bajaj is still confused of the basic proposition of audit and representation. He admits that auditors do report the violation of section 269SS or 269T and suggest the addition in income. This is the call of his profession. I think the principle of natural justice need not be elaborated here as every violator has got an inherent right to defend himself against any penal proceedings and that is the second duty of the CA to do so to explain the situations which led to the violations. By the way Sec 273B as refereed to be the author relates to the levy of penalty and not a representation for not making the additions. Both operate in different sphere and Mr. Bajaj must get clear about the same. Yes, it would have been unethical if had tried to conceal the violation, which, as per the author , is not the case. It is highly harsh of one of the moderator to say that now a days the CA’s have become manipulators of data and that they have lost their moral value as in the case of Satyam. Such a derogatory remark by an apparently novice must not find any place on this site, Mr. Sandeep Kanoi , please take not of the same. This is not a forum where the members of different profession indulge in mud-throwing be it Satyam or Adv. Anand of SC. We are not the judge of the proprietary of the professional activities of different profession. Mr. Bajaj is again requested not to ask for determination of such an irrelevant question by the higher Judiciary it as it has got not an iota of point of law. The nobility of the profession has already been upheld by the Apex Court of the nation which I repeats once again:
    “The AO has to accept the authenticity of the accounts maintained in accordance with the provisions of Part II and Part III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, which are certified by the auditors and passed by the company in the general meeting.” The AO does not have the jurisdiction to go beyond the net profit shown in the profit and loss account certified as above.”
    The discussion should end here.

  12. CA narendra sarawagi says:

    Yes Ca should represent the assesse. he has obtained notes and records in support of the report and the exihibits are also supportinfg the evidences. some time the department goes against assesse inspite of the evidence. these paractise will be minimised only on his representation

  13. Amit Bajaj Advocate says:

    When I say the C.A is representing the revenue then I don’t mean that he is representing because there exist an agent principal relation between the revenue and the assessee. Nor it is because of any fees or commission is paid to the C.A. by revenue.

    No doubt the C.A is appointed by the assessee on his own for the statutory mandate of audit. But the auditor is duty bound to the revenue to state and reflect the true profits arrived at by the assessee and to state that correct books of accounts have been maintained by the assessee.

    If there is any violation of the provisions of Income Tax he is duty bound to the revenue to state the same in his report and on the basis of such report the authorities can take action against the assessee.

    As I stated above in the example if there is violation of section 269SS or 269T of IT Act the auditor is duty bound to the revenue to state the same in the audit report. Later on in the assessment proceedings the same auditor if tries to justify the violation on behalf of the assessee it would amount to soliciting both for the revenue and the assessee.

    The auditor certainly represents the revenue when he is doing statutory audit of the assessee since its not only a mandate for the aseessee to get his accounts audited but also at the same time imposes a duty on the auditor to reflect the true pictures of the books of accounts of the assessee for the revenue so that the assessee can be properly assessed.

    Merely because the option is given to the assessee to choose his own auditor and making payment to the auditor does not result in making the auditor getting discharged from his duty which he has towards revenue while auditing the books of accounts of the assessee. on these grounds I Feel the C.A. doing audit represents the revenue

  14. Amit Bajaj Advocate says:

    Thanks all for so much of responses. I have received a lot of mails on this issue too, some in favour and some in against. I think in any case the question needs to be examined by the higher Judiciary it certainly has got some law point.

  15. Dhanvir says:

    CAs should be allowed as he has the full knowledge of client accountancy.
    hiring another CA will just result in more time for completion of procedure,hence more money.

  16. KRISHNA says:

    The suggestion is good as now a days the CA’s are not performing their duty of a auditer properly, they become manipulators of data for their client and again give justification to the dept to their client . this way the system of audit lost its moral value as in the case of Satyam. but just because some CA are not performing properly , assessment proceeding given to some other CA will increase the burden of business man and ultimately affect the business . hence it is better to continue as it is today.

  17. CA Lalit Munoyat says:

    Amit Bajaj Advocate has misintrepreted the provisions of the relevant laws and then attempts to justify the same by asking for comments from other professionals.The matter has been elaborately explained by many Ld. scholors.The auditors are appointed by the owners and not by the Govt.Under Companies Act they are appointed by the shareholders (Owners) of the company and are morally bound to explain the same as and when any occasion arises. The appointment is a mandate of the ACT. Likewise the auditors are appointed by the Dealers under VAT due to a mandate in the said ACT.The legislations provides for a particular provision and then leave the same to the auditees to appoint the one of thier choice subject to certain restrictions.In the case of PSU (i.e. the Govt.Co.) the appointing authority again is the owner i.e. the Govt. through CAG.The importance of the appointment can be understood from the observations of the Hon’ble SC.” A bench of Hon’ble SC headed by Justice SH Kapadia while ruling in favour of HCL Comnet Systems & Services said: “The AO has to accept the authenticity of the accounts maintained in accordance with the provisions of Part II and Part III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, which are certified by the auditors and passed by the company in the general meeting.” The AO does not have the jurisdiction to go beyond the net profit shown in the profit and loss account certified as above.”

    I think the Ld. Advocate Amit Bajaj should correct his vision of the provision. Though I am a CA myself but I have not been influenced by any bias of my profession.

  18. Amit Bajaj Advocate says:

    All opposing the question raised above consider the following:

    The audit under Income Tax Act or VAT act is a statutory audit. Audit will always be an independent act since its related with the personal valuation and understanding of a person.

    But what about in those cases where addition is made on the basis of audit reports? Do the auditor not in these cases acts as the representative of the revenue?

    Suppose the auditor in his audit report states that a payment has been made in the books of accounts of the assessee which is in violation of section 269SS or 269T and suggest the addition in income.

    Later on in the assessment proceedings can he defend the same assessee stating that there was a reasonable cause for violation u/s 273B and addition be not made. should he be allowed to do that? will not this amount to same solicitor for the revenue as well as the assessee?

  19. Pawan Kejriwal says:

    The same should not be allowed to represent the assesment proceedings. I have an strong reason for the same. Many CA’s does some mistake in the Audit report which I have recently come across. When the same CA represent he not disclose his mistake and the Assesse is asked to pay the tax and penalty for the no fault of the assessee. When the different CA represent the mistake will be brought to the notice of assesee. In one of the recent case beacuse of the mistake of the CA in the audit report his case was selected for reassesment in departmental internal audit.

  20. Jileesh.K.R says:

    I disagree,CAs performs Statutory Audit and Act as represntative in two different capacities.Acting as representative doesn’t mean that he is trying to help the client by evading tax. As a representative he is trying to make the client’s position clear and helps the IT dept to come to a conclusion. As a statory auditor he is the better person to clarify and make the paonts clear.

  21. Mohan says:

    “a Chartered Accountant….he is acting as an agency of the revenue department”

    Sir, You mean as an Agent the CA can entitled commission / fee from the Revenue?

  22. Jinal Shah says:

    I strongly disagree for the followign reasons:
    1. CA conducting statutory audits are not doing so on behalf of the Government. it is a well recognised fact that the work and conduct of a CA in an audit is supposed to be independent and not on behalf of or againt anyone. CA has to take an objective voew of the matter and the law. Only consideration to be borne is mind by CAs in the course of the audit is that the law has been adhered to.

    2. A CA conducing the audit is much better aware of the issues concerning his client than a 3rd party. He would be able to address the issues in a much more informed manner.

  23. Jaiprakash Joshi says:

    As far as my view CA doing statury audit of assese’s account is not an agant of revenue department or any govt.agency because he/she is charging for same to his client. If he works as an agent of revenue department than he has to work like PP of legal department. but this is not hapening in this case so if CA is representing Assesee nothing is wrong because legally he is authorised person of the assesse because he is appointed by assesee as their authorised auditor.

  24. bhupendra shah says:

    No statutory auditor is an agent of any Dept. of Govt.
    Thus any attempt to justify the stand of the author on any other ground would not stand.

  25. CA Student says:

    Statutory audit is directed by law, but has to performed at assesse’s end by the assessee for his own accounts. The payment is made by assessee and the report is also submitted to the assessee. How can the same be said to be conducted on behalf of the Government?

  26. yes , any other CA not having vested interest shold be allowed to defend on behalf of assessee . says:

    yes , any other CA not having vested interest shold e allowed to represent in such assessment proceddings .

  27. Rajesh says:

    CAs want the cake and eat it too. One more method of increasing employment to the CAs, advocates and their brethren. Now having audited the books of accounts they have atleast some moral obligation to the assessee. If a new person is engaged God save the hapless assessee who will have to first convince the new person and also the Income Tax Department. As such each and every report under the IT Act has to be obtained from a CA which has ensured a stranglehold on the assessee. However the reports are non committal and are useless in providing insight into the happenings in a Company. Appears to be a retrograde move unless it is an employment guarantee scheme for CAs and their ilk.

  28. Manoj Anand FCA says:

    The combined service of Audit & Tax representation results in economy of service alongwith automatic solution for usual conflicting points. This is essential for small asseessee’s.

  29. pravin kumar karn says:

    Dear Mr. Amit
    With due respect I will like to draw your attention that statutory is not an audit on behalf on income tax or vat department. This is an independent appraisal of books of account by an auditor for forming an opinion. An auditor is not an agent of revenue.
    Your basic concept about auditing is wrong. Hence the issue is not debatable at all and CA is justified and are rightly representing their clients in Income tax assessment procedures etc.

    Pravin Kumar Karn
    Mobile: 9873205211

  30. Chandan Bagaria says:

    CA’s in practice shoul be allowed to Represent the assessees. The reason. The mere Fact that CA’s have conducted the statutory audit of his client shall not make him ineligible to be present before the revenue authority.

    1. Representation is done when there is a show cause notice or any clarification is asked from the client or to provide documents on behalf of the client. CA’s give justification of their clients action and decision taken in a accounting period. Being the statutory auditors they have the knoledge of the client business in detail and also with their professional qualification they have a better technical knowledge of the Law which may not be found in the client itself.

    2. The other point to contest can be that “why not some other auditor or professionals do the representation apart from the Statutory Auditor”. Here again it means that the CA’s who have done the audit on government behalf need to be cheaked by some other professional before making any representation to the government.

    3. If we follow the other way it will lengthen the Assessment prcedures, Frustrate the client who will have only one business and that will be to visit the offices of the consultant.

    4. It will increase the threat to business secrecy,Increase the compliance cost and loss of valuable time.

    5. Chartered Accountants are known for their Integrity and Unbiased and their job is to give the best possible decision with the available Information so no whether they are doing audit for the government or representing client against the government they are always unbiased and transparent and loyal to the country.

    Any further discussion is welcome to increase our knowledg base.

    Thank You
    Chandan BAGaria
    M. no. 067946

  31. Inder jit singh ubhi says:

    that ca which done staturated audit done , know all the fact of the business so he/she can reply much better than other ca which not done the staturated audit .

  32. ismail says:

    Dear Sir,

    Please note first appellate forum in Income Tax department is Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) which is part of the same department. The judgement against or confirming the order passed by the assessing officer of the same department(which may even be the same cadre-CIT)delivered by the CIT(A), is acceptable by both assessee and department. The same doctrine is issued here also. The reason that CA’s are allowed to audit and to represent on behalf of the same assessee is he is well aware of the issues of the case.

Leave a Comment

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

Search Posts by Date

September 2021
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930