B.S.K. RAO

b-s-k-rao(1) Indian Legislature provided special class of persons called Advocates in Advocates Act, 1961 to practice all Indian laws. Section 29 of Advocator Act, specifies that Advocator alone are entitled to practice the profession of Law & Section 33 of Advocates Act specifies that Advocates alone entitled to practice the profession of law before any Court or before any authority or person. Bar Council of India Vs A.K.Balaji [SLP (Civil) No(s) 17150-17154/2012] 4.7.2012 (SC) & A. K. Balaji Vs Govt. of India (2012) 35 KLR 290 21.02.2012 (HC) it was clearly held by Apex Court & Madras HC that Advocates alone are entitled to practice the Profession of Law both in litigious and non-litigious matters.

(2) Legal profession in India governed by Advocates Act and the disciplinary rules and regulations, code of conduct and professional ethics framed & practiced from time to time. There is also a hierarchy of disciplinary authorities such as the State Bar Council, Bar Council of India, Supreme Court, etc. These authorities can exercise their disciplinary authority/control only over the Advocates who are on the Rolls maintained under the Advocates Act Any person who is not subject to disciplinary control of the above said authority if allowed to practice the profession of law, he/she would go scot-free and would not be subject to the supervision and the disciplinary jurisdiction of the above said authorities. Professional misconduct in the course of “Practice of Law” purely covered under Advocates Act read with Bar Council of India Rules in India. i.e, only Bar Council in India issued license to enrolled Advocates to practice law in India & take action for professional negligence. Chartered Accountants neither licensed to practice law to enable his/her professional body to take action for professional misconduct nor any out side agencies charge them for professional negligence.

advocate-logo

(3) Audit means verification, depending on the purpose they are classified as Energy Audit, Environment Audit, Product Audit, Process Audit, Pollution Audit, Legal Audit in USA & Tax Audit in Indian Income-Tax Act. Here, person conducting audit should be specialized in that particular Subject Hence, Audit in GST Law is the domain of Law Professionals. In conclusion, only person licensed to practice law in India should issue Audit Certificate under GST Law. If such authority for Appearance & audit given to Chartered Accountants, situation may arise that order of assessing authority in proposed GST Law, passed against the audit & representation of Chartered Accountant become in-fructuous, bad in law, null & void, as it amounts to passing of the order without giving an opportunity of being heard to the assesee. Further, such orders can not be enforced by the Deptt. to recover revenue demand raised.

A.K. Balaji Vs. Government of India

(2012) 35 KLR 290 (Mad.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 21.02.2012

HEAD NOTE:-

Advocates Act, 1961 – There is no bar for foreign lawyers or law firms to visit India for temporary periods on a “fly in and fly out” basis to advise their clients on foreign law and diverse international legal issues. They are however not permitted to practice Indian law, either in relation to litigation or advisory matters, unless they qualify and enroll as advocates and fulfill the requirements of the Act and Rules. The activities performed by BPOs and LPOs do not constitute practice of law and hence do not conflict with the Act. The Bar Council of India may take necessary steps in relation to the practice of law by chartered accountants and management firms, which is contrary to the Act.

Bar Council of India Vs A.K.Balaii

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. L. P. (Civil) No(s).17150-17154/2012
DATED : 04.07.2012

HEAD NOTE:-

In the meanwhile, it is clarified that Reserve Bank of India shall not grant any permission to the foreign law firms to open Mason offices in India under Section 29 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973. It is also clarified that the expression “to practice the profession of law” under Section 29 of the Advocates Act 1961 covers the persons practicing litigious matters as well as non-litigious matters other than contemplated in para 63(6) of the impugned order and, therefore, to practice in non-litigious matters in India the foreign law firms, by S.L.P. (Civil) No(s).17150-17154/2012 whatever name called or described, shall be bound to follow the provisions contained in the Advocates Act 1961.

Madras Bar Association Vs Union of India

IN THE CONSTITUTION BENCH OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

National Tax Tribunal Case No.150 of 2006
DATED : 25.09.2014

HEAD NOTE:-

Keeping in mind the fact , that in terms of Section 15 of the NTT Act , the NTT would hear appeals from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Custom , Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunals (CESTAT) only on “Substantial Questions of Law”, it is difficult for us to appreciate the propriety of representation , on behalf of a party to an appeal , through either Chartered Accountants or Company Secretaries , before NTT. The determination at the hands of NTT is shorn of factual disputes. It has to decide only “Substantial Question of Law”. In our understanding, Chartered Accountants and Company Secretaries would at the best be specialists in understanding and explaining issues pertaining to accounts. These issues would, fall purely within the realm of facts . We find it difficult to accept the prayer made by the Company Secretaries to allow them to represent a party to an appeal brfore the NTT . Even insofar as the Chartered Accountants are concerned , we are constrained to hold that allowing them to appear on behalf of a party before the NTT , would be unacceptable in law . We accordingly reject the claim of Company Secretaries , to represent a party before the NTT . Accordingly the prayer made by Company Secretaries in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 621 of 2007 is hereby declined. While recording the above conclusion, we simultaneously hold Section 13 (1) , insofar as it allows Chartered Accountants to represent a party to an appeal before the NTT, unconstitutional and unsustainable in law .

Opinion of Supreme Court of New Jersey, USA

(Advocates can practice both law & public accounts)

HEAD NOTE:-

The court must have had some kind of vision of the professional world converging in the future, for as early as 1964, it set rather interesting ground rules into place for the cross-employment restrictions of Legal and CPA professionals. In Opinion 23 (January 9, 1964), the court was asked: “May a member of the Bar of New Jersey engage in the practice of law in this State simultaneously with the practice of public accounting?” In response, the court’s opinion states:

“… we find that the dual practices of law and accounting … by lawyers would not violate the Cannons of Professional Ethics. Nor does it appear to us that any other rules of our Supreme Court would be violated by such dual practices….”

(Author is an Auditor & Tax Advocate and can be reached E-Mail: raoshimoga@gmail.com Mobile No. +91-9035089036)

What is RCM under GST?

More Under Goods and Services Tax

Posted Under

Category : Goods and Services Tax (6819)
Type : Articles (16941) Featured (4070)
Tags : Advocate B.S.K.RAO (10) goods and services tax (5301) GST (4904)

60 responses to “Appearance & Audit under GST Law Domain of Advocates”

  1. Ashish Kumar Yadav Advocate says:

    yes I agree with the openion of author

  2. Rajendira kumar says:

    An advocate with additional knowledge/exposure/qualification are not suitably recognized. for Eg: though legal audit is emerging as a significant and challenging in the field of Banking and finance where in the CA have no much role to play, The Reserve Bank India is not granting license/registration like one given to the CA .

  3. g.giridhar says:

    Let BCI allow its members who are qualified CA’s to take COP and allow dual practice.

  4. g.giridhar says:

    CA institute is permitting dual practice it is only BCI is preventing its members from practising other profession. The BCI should allow its members who are qualified CA”s to take COP from ICAI to discharge attest functions. A doctor with MBBS degree is allowed to perform limited surgery whereas the same doctor with MS degree can perform surgery of patients in operation theatre . In the same manner the BCI should take a lenient view allow its members who possess CA/ CMA/ CS qualification to practice audit and attest function by obtaining COP from respective Institute’s it is only a furtherance of their professional function . In a more naked sense when a client approaches a CA or CMA for GST work he can perform both attest function and representative function to his client . Whereas an advocate can render only representative service . The professional world is marching towards one roof all services whereas BCI is restricting the ambit of its services by its members to four walls of the Representative service . it is not out of place to mention in earlier days it was only Advocates who were rendering services in company formation, filing IT Returns . The BCI has missed bus by not upgrading its curicullum to the present scenerio and retain their professional uniqueness . Because of the wrong policies of the BCI it is only Advocates have to face competition from other professionals of different domian. The advocates are not is competition to any other professional . With any specialisation courses in CPC And CrPC in future by separate institutes with the blessings of Parliment will attempt to bid a adieu to 3 century old the noble profession . The legal fraternity should think now!

  5. Tax.Adv.BSKRAO says:

    Law is the exclusive domain of Advocates but still other professionals are doing practice in Law, somewhere I have seen S.C said a clerk ( Who is Working in Court) is more knowledgeable than an advocate, but we can not call them as Advocate, hence Chartered Accountants may be good in their field like accounts & tax law. As CAs are not lawyer they can not do practice in Law.

  6. PRAKASH JOSHI says:

    With due respect, a humble submission.I am a law graduate as well as CS, so from my practical experience I can say it is true that no matter how much tough the course of CA and the course standards are, a CA can not match the legal knowledge, interpretation skills,drafting, presentation and advocacy skills of an advocate. But it is also true that all of these skills can be gained by with experience.The taxation matters constitute both accounting and legal issues. hence, all the professionals not only CA and Advocates but CS or ICWAs should be allowed to practice. I have a different opinion about retired officers of the departments an MBA, M.Com or a graduate.CA, CS or CWAs definitely have more rigourius study standards.A company Secretary is well tarined in legal,accounts and audit areas.
    There is enormous scope for all in taxation.

    • Tax.Adv.BSKRAO says:

      Prakash Joshua Sir, I do agree scope in Tax Law Practice, here the problem is how to practice Income-Tax law with 46 Plus CA certificates. This law makers should understand & delete all such certification inserted without accountability

  7. Tax.Adv.B.S.K.RAO says:

    Indian legislature provided special class of persons called Advocates in Advocates Act, 1961 to practice all Indian laws. Section 29 of Advocates Act, specifies that Advocates alone are entitled to practice the profession of Law. Section 33 of Advocates Act specifies that Advocates alone entitled to practice the profession of law before any Court or before any authority or person. Section 32 of Advocates Act provides for appearance of person not enrolled as Advocate only with the special permission of Court, Authority or Person in any particular case. Therefore, Authorised Representative clause not required in any Indian taxation laws. In view inserting Authorised Representative clause in all Indian taxation laws, persons not enrolled as Advocate are practicing Indian taxation laws in the guise of appearance till the stage of Appellate Tribunal. In fact, person not enrolled as Advocates are appearing before revenue authorities on own motion by the strength of power of attorney, that too against the notice issued to the clients. To sum-up Authorized Representative clause present in all Indian taxation laws have been misused by person not enrolled as Advocates resulting in un-authorized practice law in India.

  8. V.S.VANDAL says:

    it is right way to coveney to gst council and cbdt and goverment. THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA SAFE GUARD OF ADVOCATES RIGHTS.AND ADOCATES IS ONLY PERSON TO AUTORISED TO REPRESENT THE JUDICAL AND QUASI JUDICAL

  9. Paramjit singh says:

    CAs can not effectivly persue e assessee not even GST BUT under I tac law the procdeings under i tax and GST are quasi judicial proceedings, cA has no legal knowledge he is only passed the exam to do audit .the law is mis used , any advocate can do audit as well as litigation , cA can only obey law but adv is fully competent to interprit the law. I think the way of audit under income tax is nothing but a certification of accounts , adv are well educated for such certifications

  10. Sanjeev dhiman yamunanagar says:

    It is true that practice in GST law is advocate domain

  11. TAX ADVOCATE DEEPAK BAPAT, MUMBAI says:

    To,
    Mr Arun Jetly
    The Hon’ble Minister of Finance,
    Government of India,

    Sir,

    Sub: CA’s monopoly to practice under GST and other Tax Laws should be stopped

    I respectfully state that all the Ministers, MP’s, MLA’s and Judges in India are under wrong impression that only Chartered Accountants are in practice of taxation. Therefore, the taxation laws are being drafted only with the advice of Chartered Accountants working in various Government Departments or as the case may be with the advice of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.
    To do away the aforesaid misunderstanding, I bring to your kind notice, that under the Income Tax, Excise, Service Tax and Sales Tax Act, following professionals are allowed to prepare returns, statutory compliance etc. and to attend before the Officers & Tribunals in every proceeding under the Act:
    Advocates
    Sales Tax Practitioners(Commerce graduates and retired officers of the Sales Tax Department)
    Income Tax Practitioners(Commerce graduates and retired officers of the Income Tax Department)
    Retired Officers of the Excise Department
    Chartered Accountants
    Cost Accountants
    Company Secretaries

    Under Section 35Q of the Central Excise Act, there is no concept of Excise Practitioner or Service Tax Practitioner. However, the CA’s, Cost Accountants and retired officers of the Excise Department are allowed to appear before the Excise Officers & Tribunals as ‘Agent’ of the Tax Payer.
    To appear before the tax authorities is the domain of Advocates. Inadvertently or otherwise, you have kept the said area open for ‘Agents’ who are not Advocates. Contrary to aforesaid policy, you have reserved the right of Audit under Section 42(4) of the GST Act, only to CAs and Cost Accountants and the right of Income Tax Audit is reserved only for CAs.
    As stated in the beginning, because of unawareness of Politicians, they are treating CAs as supreme for practice of tax laws, though large number of Advocates are also successfully practicing under the tax laws. This unawareness resulted in introducing the provision of audit (only by CA) under the Income Tax and Sales Tax Laws. Once the CA is appointed as Auditor, the tax payer does not appoint the Advocate for the work of preparation of returns and attendance etc. Since 1983 i.e. after introduction of Audit provision under the Income Tax Act, large number of Advocates lost their cream clients and the new generation of Advocates is reluctant to practice on tax laws. The above situation, gave an opportunity to CAs to canvass that very few Advocates are practicing under tax laws.
    The number of Advocates appearing before the Income Tax, Sales Tax, Excise and Service Tax authorities is much more than Chartered Accountants. As the Advocates have played the important role for successful implementation of Income Tax, Sales Tax, Excise, Service Tax Law, we strongly suggest that, because of huge experience of an Advocates, they will be proved of immense help to the GST Department to increase elegitimate revenue if the right of Audit under Section 42(4) is granted to them.
    When the Sales Tax Practitioners Association of Maharashtra filed the Writ Petition to Bombay High Court seeking direction to the Government of Maharashtra for allowing the Advocates to certify the audit report under the Maharashtra VAT Act, the Court took the view that, being a matter of Government Policy it cannot interfere with the said policy decision. While dismissing the SLP filed against the aforesaid decision, the Supreme Court advised the Petitioners to approach the Ministers and not to Courts.
    Therefore, the Sales Tax Practitioners Association of Maharashtra, approached the Government of Maharashtra, for allowing Advocates to certify the audit report under the Maharashtra VAT Act. However, the Ministers and IAS officers for the reasons known to them refused to do so.
    As per Section 2 of the Chartered Accountants Act, any CA is supposed to practice only accounts and audit. However, by disregarding the aforesaid provision, CAs are carrying out other activities such as filing up the forms of returns under the Taxation Act, filing up the forms for license or registration certificate under Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, Public Trust Act etc. In number of cases, the High Courts and Supreme Courts have held that the Chartered Accountants cannot argue the cases under the Consumer Protection Act, Labour Act etc. Inspite of the above, CAs are arguing the cases before the appellate authorities and Tribunals. The above acts of CAs is the violation of Section 2 of the Chartered Accountants Act.
    The present Tax Laws and Section 86 of the GST Model Law allows CAs and other professionals(though they are not Advocates), to attend before the authorities & Tribunal in any proceeding. However, it is required to be taken into account that the said provision does not allow them to plead or as the case may be to practice such tax law, as if he or she is an Advocate. Inspite of that, large number of CAs are pleading before the tax authorities and thus carrying out the practice of law. The above action of such CAs is liable for criminal action under Section 45 of the Advocates Act.
    The aforesaid facts and circumstance makes it clear that large number of Advocates are practicing in the field of Sales Tax, Excise and Service Tax. The knowledge of accounts required for preparation of returns and for audit of accounts, is identical. The knowledge of accounts has the importance of only the facts of the case. Therefore, only because the CAs are conversant with accounts, they cannot claim supremacy in the practice of GST Law. As such, there is no logic in allowing only CA’s and Cost Accountants to conduct the audit of accounts under Section 42(4) of the Model GST Act.
    In fact, the term ‘audit of accounts’ is a misnomer. It creates an impression that being audit of accounts, it is the domain of only CAs. Therefore, the said term is required to be replaced by the words “Compliance Report’. As the provision of the said audit by CAs has created their monopoly, you are requested to stop the same for the reasons explained hereinbefore, by making suitable amendment to the GST Act.
    Moreover, the Government of India without the application of mind, introduced the scheme of ‘Tax Return Preparer’ vide Section 34 of the Model GST Act under which, any commerce graduate can prepare the GST return. The aforesaid provision of appointing Tax Return Preparers will result into creation of unqualified GST Practitioners. It is required to be taken into account that for preparation of returns under the Tax Law, the knowledge and practice under the said Act is essential. Only because such a person can operate computer and can make use of software for preparation and uploading of returns and various reports under the GST Act, there is no logic in appointing them as Tax Return Preparers. Hence the said provision is required to be removed.
    The provision of allowing a taxable person to be represented before the tax authorities by his relative or employee is also not logical. The permission to allow a litigant to appear in person before any Court should not be equated with the relative or employee. Therefore, only in exceptional circumstances, such permission should be granted.
    Under the circumstance, we suggest and request you to do the following:
    To amend Section 42(4) of the Model GST Act in such a manner that the term ‘audit of accounts’ should be replaced with the words ‘compliance report’ and the Advocates, Cost Accountants and Chartered Accountants be allowed to certify the said ‘compliance report’.
    To amend Section 86 of the Model GST Act in such a manner that a relative or regular employee of a taxable person cannot appear in any proceeding on behalf of a taxable person.
    To delete Section 34 of the Model GST Act which provides for Tax Return Preparers.
    To amend the Income Tax Act on the aforesaid lines.

  12. Axat Pareshkumar says:

    Respected All,

    All Tax Professionals are at the the mercy of Tax Collectors.

    Tax collectors are those who are registered to collect tax on behalf of Government. So, in that course they are agents of governments. We can call them Assessee, Dealers, Service Provider or anything.

    Tax professionals are at large are their Agents.
    Nothing Else.

    Government should think about It’s agents and their compliance cost.

    We know india is developing country and forign education like CA is in the developing mode.

    In many part of Our country we have very scarcity of CA Firm.

    In Gujarat we have identified several district where no any single CA Firm exists. Think about the Dealers from this area who will fall under the GST Audit Criteria.

    Do we expect within coming two or three years; ICAI will pass enough number of CA so that no part of India will feel scarcity of CA? Answer is simple NO.

    Then what will happen? High Compliance cost to dealers.

    Untimely and lethargic tax report will be submitted to Government. Any Government will also not able to trace its income – expenditure – refund in time.

    We also know that under Model GST Law; Section 49 exists. Which empower Government Authorities to do AUDIT. And no / very less government authorities are CA.

    Now think if Being a principal, Government will do AUDIT WORK BY NON CA and being Government’s agent Dealers must have to go to CA!!!

    There are numbers of tax practitioners in India; working as bridge between tax authority and trade and commerce since more then many decades. How government could say they are not capable to do some work they were doing since last 20-30 or 50 years!!!!

    Discussion may be long enough……

    But

    To may Advocate brother I only have one request that everything need calm approach and sobar attitude.

    Demanding AUDIT is not demand of our bread and butter; it’s demand for our SOCIO-ECONOMIC status and equality.

    Think about it. Think about the government; and try to convince It. They are responsive and sympathetic. Why they will have to discriminate?

    No lobby working to prove it’s substance. If you are having fear about some groups of CA’s. Take a break sir. They are extreamly busy with direct tax compliance and very few (maximum 10 to 20%) CA’s are 100% depending on indirect tax practice.

    And if we could go to Government and inform probability of hardship by this decision to Dealers as well as government. What’s the reason they will reject your prayer?

    Right could not be given to sleepers; right is only available for awared ones.

    Woke up and without any bias attitude against any Professional Body or Qualification- just approach government. You will “ALSO” get audit under GST Act.

    Best luck to all,
    Axat
    9898265111
    axat_vyas@hotmail.com

    • BSKRAO says:

      Preamble to formation of ATL, many hue & cry made by Adv. & TPs of AIFTP in every meeting of AIFTP to strongly represent before Govt. about Audit in Indian tax laws for limited purpose of Non-Corporate entities handled by Adv. & TP. In all meetings, the issues were set aside due to the strong apposition by CA members of AIFTP who were viewing us at foot level. Only in the tenure of M.V.K.Murthy Sir, it was taken up. Before that ATL was formed by its founder members G.N.Sharma, MandeepSingh, DeepakBapat, MaheshKoushik, RajeshTakkar, Rajesh Mahana, Ajay Sinha, Mukul Gupta, V.P.Gupta, Ashwini Acharya in the meeting conducted at Delhi Tax Bar Association Building on 7.05.2013. In that meting, I have brought the draft Memorandum & rules, it was finalised on reading each & every clause by Sinha Ji in the presence of Mahana Sab. In the same meeting it was also discussed to have separate Ass. for Tax Lawyers & TPs to claim our rights. By the grace of God I got the connection of one Tpr.Sridhar of Bellary to promote separate National Level body for TPs. He approached all TPs of India & finalised bylaw for Institute of Tax Practitioners of India & got it registered at B-Lore. This is the back story of Adv. & TPs well known to all founder members of ATL

  13. S L JOSHI says:

    Appearance & Audit under GST Law Domain of Advocates

    I would like to stress upon the role of Tax Practitioners in GST law, who are molded from Gross Root Level Few Glimpses of which are;

    One: Accountancy, which is mother of Audit and relevant taxation laws requires lots of patience. Having spent few years, the professional will have practical knowledge of difference between capital receipts & Revenue receipts.

    Two: Book keeping will give the understanding of direct expenses and indirect expenses, which in turn help in understanding costing, value addition and deduction towards Labor charges etc. Under relevant acts/rules.

    Three: Through one of the objects of VAT Act was to eliminate personal interface, in practice nothing is moving right from Registration, Amendment, Assessment, Rectification to the Appeal without personal appearance & liasoning. This is state of administration & fact in practice.

    Four: with so much patience and practical experience, dedication, discipline the professional prefix’s his name with Tax Practitioner. Inspite of which as Sridharji has rightly categorized him with a “ant” in this column as the profession is unorganized and unregulated.
    With enormous compliances involved in GST regime Tax Practitioners, numbering in lakhs are spread out in whole of the country even in remote areas, have important role to play. The government on its part, very much require vast human resources for successful implementation of the new tax regime. Therefore Executive shall come forward to legislate suitable law to unify, regulate Tax Practitioners which will be beneficial to them as well as to the government.

    S.L. Joshi

    28-10-2016

  14. SAMPATHLAL JOSHI says:

    Appearance& Audit under GST Law Domain of Advocates

    I would like to stress upon the role of Tax Practitioners in GST law, who are molded from Gross Root LevelFewGlimpses of which are;

    One: Accountancy, which is mother of Audit and relevant taxation laws requires lots of patience.Having spent few years, the professional will have practical knowledge of difference between capital receipts & Revenue receipts.

    Two: Book keeping will give the understanding of direct expenses and indirect expenses, which in turn help in understanding costing, value addition and deduction towards Labor charges etc.Under relevant acts/rules.

    Three:Through one of the objects of VAT Act was to eliminate personal interface, in practice nothing is moving right from Registration,Amendment, Assessment, Rectification to the Appeal without personal appearance& liasoning. This is state of administration & fact in practice.

    Four: with so much patience and practical experience, dedication, discipline the professional prefix’s his name with Tax Practitioner. Inspite of which as Sridharji has rightly categorized him with a “ant” in this column as the profession is unorganized and unregulated.
    With enormous compliances involved in GST regime Tax Practitioners, numbering in lakhs are spread out in whole of the country even in remote areas, have important role to play. The government on its part, very much require vast human resources for successful implementation of the new tax regime. Therefore Executive shall come forward to legislate suitable law to unify, regulateTax Practitioners which will be beneficial to them as well as to the government.

    S.L. Joshi

    28-10-2016

  15. Deepak maheshwari says:

    Constitution of Indias gives equal rights to every one then why there is a discrimination between CA and Advocate. CA can certify books of accounts while an Advocate is not allowed is trusted for this simple task but trusted for more complicated tasks like interpretation of Law and practise. This discrimination should end in the new GST bill.

  16. Advocate Rakesh Bansal says:

    (1) Legal Practitioners are also authorized to prepare return of income & represent assesses U/s.288(2) of Income-Tax Act read with Rule 12A. Rule 12A inserted by Notification No.2029 Dt.13.6.1962, require Legal Practitioner covered U/s 288(2) to furnish report on the examination of assesses account books & documents in the assessment proceedings. Here question arises when such audit clause already present in Rule 12A of IT Rules, why once again Section 44AB inserted in Income-Tax Act.

    (2) When Legal Practitioners are authorized to prepare return of income under 12A of Income-Tax Rules, it is presumed that such persons possess knowledge of Income-Tax law read with accounting principle prescribed U/s 145 of Income-Tax Act. Information to be furnished in Certificates/Reports under Income-Tax Act amounts to practice of law as it require interpretation of law more & basic accounting knowledge sufficient.

    (3) When Legal Practitioners are the only class of persons entitled to practice law U/s 29 of Advocates Act, 1961 (Law Professionals), there is no justification in
    prohibiting Advocates to issue Certificates or Reports in Income-Tax Act. (This is well supported by Bar Council of India Vs. A.K.Balaji SLP (Civil) 17150-17154/2012)

    • Tax.Adv.BSKRAO says:

      You have correctly said Bansal Sab,

      CBDT has retained outdated mandatory tax audit clause U/s 44AB of Income-Tax Act for Non-Corporate assesses since almost three decades, that too in this computer era, without evaluating its utility & also not providing the ways or mechanism to search out empty slots of CA Signature to assesses/Non-CA Tax Professionals, which is causing strict hurdle for giving voluntary compliance.

      Because of 46 Plus mandatory CA Certificates in Income-Tax Act, Legal Practitioners, Cost Accountants, Company Secretaries and Income-Tax Practitioners can not exercise the authority granted in the statute fully & independently. This is practically causing strict hurdle for voluntary compliance. Here the question is, when such other class of persons are authorized to prepare return, there is no justification to prohibit them from issue of certificates in Income-Tax Act.

Leave a Reply

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