Advocate Deepak Bapat
1. 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.
2. 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:
(i) Advocates
(ii) Sales Tax Practitioners(Commerce graduates and retired officers of the Sales Tax Department)
(iii) Income Tax Practitioners(Commerce graduates and retired officers of the Income Tax Department)
(iv) Retired Officers of the Excise Department
(v) Chartered Accountants
(vi) Cost Accountants
(vii) Company Secretaries
3. 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. In every State, Commerce graduates and retired officers of the Sales Tax Department are enrolled with the Commissioner of Sales Tax as Sales Tax Practitioner(STP). Similarly, under the Income Tax Act, commerce graduates are enrolled with the Commissioner of Income Tax as Income Tax Practitioner(ITP). It is a matter of surprise, as to why there is no provision under the Excise Act, to enroll commerce graduates as Excise & Service Tax Practitioner, when, even the CA (who knowns only accounts) is allowed to attend as ‘Agent’.
4. The reason for the above is that, the ITPs & STPs does not have the Governing Act and Governing Institute to convince the Government of India that the STP’s have sufficient knowledge of accounts to practice as ‘Excise & Service Tax Practitioner’. The Advocates, Chartered Accountants, Cost Accountants and Company Secretaries are governed respectively by the Bar Council of India, Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of India and Institute of Company Secretaries of India. The aforesaid Institutes(Governing Body) are established under the respective Act of Parliament of India.
5. The Government of India has completely ignored the above important aspect regarding STP’s, while introducing GST, and without the application of mind, introduced the scheme of ‘Tax Return Preparer’ under which, any commerce graduate can prepare the GST return. As the STPs have played the important role for successful implementation of Sales Tax Law, I strongly suggest that, before the introduction of GST, the Central Government should introduce the ‘Goods & Service Tax Practitioners Act of India’ to govern the ‘Sales Tax Practitioners’ who are presently enrolled with the Commissioner of Sales Tax of each State. Needless to state that the aforesaid Act can be enacted even before the GST Act comes into force, because currently also, Goods and Services are being taxed under the respective Act and therefore the STP’s and retired officers who are attending the proceedings under the respective Act, can be called as GST Practitioner within the meaning of ‘GST Practitioners Act of India’.
6. If the GST Practitioners Act is brought in force and GST Practitioners Institute is established thereunder, every “GST Practitioner” will be subject to statutory discipline. Moreover, because of examination and obligatory training courses conducted by the GST Practitioners Institute, he will be proved of immense help to the GST Department to increase legitimate revenue. On the eve of GST Act where e-compliance would be a key factor, the “Institute of GST Practitioners of India” would produce a GST practitioner, with the level of assurance and creditability expected by the Parliament of India. I, as then President of the Sales Tax Practitioners Association of Maharashtra, tried with the Government of Maharashtra, for the introduction of the ‘Sales Tax Practitioners Act of Maharashtra’. However, the Ministers and IAS officers for the reasons known to them refused to do so.
7. The number of STPs Enrolled with the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, are more than 16,000. All over India, the number of STPs is more than 3,50,000. In the year 2010, the Central Government prepared the Bill to introduce the Legal Practitioners Act. As there was a mistake of including the Advocates who are already governed under the Advocates Act, it was opposed by the Bar Council of India.
8. 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.
9. The present Tax Laws and Section 86 of the GST Model Law allows 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.
10. As stated in the beginning, because of unawareness of Politicians, they are treating CAs as supreme, for practice of tax laws, though other professionals 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 Advocates and Tax Practitioners 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. Same is the suffering of ITPs and STPs. The above situation, gave an opportunity to CAs to canvass that very few Advocates are practicing under tax laws. About the ITPs & STPs the Courts have taken the view that as they are not governed by the Statutory Body and Statutory Act, their level of assurance and creditability cannot be guaranteed.
11. The aforesaid facts and circumstance makes it clear that large number of STP’s and 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.
12. The provision of appointing Tax Return Preparers vide Section 34 of the Model GST Act 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.
13. The provision of allowing a taxable person to be represented 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.
14. Under the circumstance, I suggest the Finance Minister to do the following:
(i) 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 GST Practitioner, Advocate, Cost Accountant, Company Secretary and Chartered Accountant be allowed to certify the said ‘compliance report’.
(ii) To enact “The GST Practitioners Act of India” and establish thereunder “The Institute of GST Practitioners of India”.
(iii) To amend Section 86 of the Model GST Act in such a manner that any person who, immediately before the commencement of this Act was qualified to appear as a Sales Tax Practitioner, shall be continued to appear as a Goods & Service Tax Practitioner for representing a taxable person in any proceeding.
(iv) To amend Section 86 of the Model GST Act in such a manner that the qualifications which were prescribed for a Sales Tax Practitioner under any earlier law, shall also be prescribed for a Goods & Service Tax Practitioner within the meaning of Goods & Service Tax Practitioners Act of India.
(v) 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.
(vi) To delete Section 34 of the Model GST Act which provides for Tax Return Preparers.
(vii) To amend the Income Tax Act on the aforesaid lines.
(Author is an Advocate & Sales Tax Consultant and can be reached Email:dkbapat2002@yahoo.co.in, Mobile: 9820528006 )
If Advocates seek themselves to be in a position to give audit report (loosely asked to term as “compliance report” in this article) then I would say every citizen of country should be allowed to practice the profession of law before all courts as every person of the land is presumed to have awareness of LAW, then why Bar Council of India making hue n cry for securing profession of law and making rules to prohibit others to appear before courts of laws. It is unfair to move wherever opportunity comes without application of mind and understanding the boundaries drawn. it is natural to try to get into others’ wedding for delicious food without having Invitation !!! That’s easy food without any hard work.
Dear Mr Bapat, Lucid explanation and Agreed.
Suggesations are always appreciable but biased suggesations never bring good result and do no improvement as desired.Sir,unbiased suggesations are always welcome with full knowledge of relevant Act/s.
This Article shows how jealous Advocates are from CA’s
Adv.Deepak Bapat has dealt with the current topic concrning the tax professionals.
1.It has taken care of the prof.who are left out.
2.it is not against the interest of any body concerned .
3. It is in the interest of successful implementation of GST. 4.it has been highlighted at the appropriate time.
The govt. Shall take note immediately by incorporating the relevant provisions highlighted by the learned Advocate.
Friends,
Please do not have any apprehension about CA’s having monopoly to practice GST. There will be uniform level playing field for all. The only point which I would like to highlight under GST is that it will be more of a transaction analysis rather than a case analysis which I am of the opinion that CA’s will have an edge over other professionals.
I am fully agree with Deepak Bapat (Advocate)and it is 100% true that practice area of Tax practitioner and advocate is being swallew up by Chartered Accountant, Cost Accountant.
5 वर्ष कामर्स कोर्स उसके बाद 3 साल लॉ कोर्स 8 साल
में व्यापार से सम्बंधित विधि में स्नातक होने के बाद भी
आयोग्य इससे अच्छा तो कोई डिप्लोमा या सर्टिफिकेट कोर्स
करना अच्छा रहता जय हो भारतीय राजनिति
5 वर्ष कामर्स कोर्स उसके बाद 3 साल लॉ कोर्स 8 साल
में व्यापार से सम्बंधित विधि में स्नातक होने के बाद भी
आयोग्य इससे अच्छा तो कोई डिप्लोमा या सर्टिफिकेट कोर्स
करना अच्छा रहता जय हो भारतीय राजनिति
Mr. Deepak Bhat first you allow an ordinary graduate as a member in your bar council to practice and appear before court of law and then give all other suggestions if that is possible.
My learned friends needs to understand that there is a vast difference between a graduate getting STP registration and a CA who are hardcore accounting, auditing and tax experts, known worldwide for their intellect in these areas.
Just by making such statements without application of mind, nothing is going to happen sir.
Well, wishing you the best….
I am not agree
Ca knows only accounts and audit
I think author should chek ca sylabus and try to atempt ca exam, at present whats the importance of LLB anyone can find llb dgree easily, i think more than 90 percant advocate dont knw meaning of income tax sales tax service tax etc
While the Article of Advocate Deepak Bapat is in the right spirit, I do not understand why the Advocates or the Bar Council of India, who want to practice GST, have not offered any comments or suggestions on the model GST Law released by the Government. This is the sad part of the story. With due respect to the Advocates,Cost Accountants, Company Secretaries or Practioners, why is it they do not offer any meaningful suggestions on the anomalies in the model GST Law or how to make the law simpler, except for the suggestion that they are NOT allowed to “Practice”. In the complex world of law, only the person who “contributes” to the development of law is alone “entitled” to practice the law. Why do Advocates have monopoly over “practicing” criminal or civil laws in the courts…it is because they are trained and equipped with the knowledge of those laws right from the time they study for their law degrees and then till the time they undergo training with a fellow senior. If that is not monopoly, will the Bar Council allow a Company Secretary, a Cost Accountant or a Chartered Accountant to argue in the High Court or Supreme Court?
Dear Sir,
CAs are qualified to practice in every economic and taxation laws. And there is no bar on practicing a profession of his choice. Syllabus of CA includes all the economic laws, taxation laws and some labour laws such as Bonus, EPF, Gratuity acts.
You are under misconception that CA is qualified only for practice in accounts & audit. He is qualified in the subjects of accounts, audit, taxation laws, economic laws, labour laws, banking laws, insurance laws, custom laws, excise & service tax, Management Consultancy, Financial system (FCRA, SEBI, Money Laundering etc.) to name a few and numerous other areas in which CAs have expert knowledge.
Audit & account itself contain such knowledge that regulatory framework requires him to report on each of the above aspects. No doubt, the knowledge of a CA is incomparable and he is expert in his profession.
As regard to representation before the authorities, the specific act gives the power to specified professionals to appear before them.
If you have so much problems with CAs or you are feeling incompetence as compared to CAs, you should also consider to pursue chartered accountancy course. It may be worthwhile to note that a large number of CAs are pursuing law course to remove their incompetencies in the matters of appeal, representation and appearance before the courts & tribunals.
My learned friend needs to understand that CAs are hardcore accounting, auditing and tax professionals.
And one should remember that there is a vast difference between a graduate getting STP registration and becoming a CA.
With all respects, a lawyer can attend various appellate authorities, but CAs still interpret accounts and taxes better. Best of luck…
Dear Sir,Section 2(2) of CA Act says that
A member of the Institute shall be deemed, “to be in practice “,when individually or in partnership with chartered accountants in practice, he, in consideration of remuneration received or to be received-
(iv) “renders such other services as, in the opinion of the Council, are or may be rendered by a chartered accountant in practice”;
So nowhere in the ACT it says , a CA is supposed to practice only in Accounts and Audit.
I am also strongly support and want to our PM and FM Sri Jetely should consider our voice and GST practitioner should be all professional like Advocate, CA, CS and cost accountant and also commerce Graduate also should be on same level in GST.
Above said opinion is genuine.
But keep on targeting the other respected professionals in almost each and every statement of opinion dose not sound ethical and professional statement.
As Tax Practitioners should not try to take all with one invitation pass to grand finale, because of lack of training and statute support,unity and failing in having recognized academy we have literaly failed in convincing the Govts so far in implementation of Tax Practitioners Bill.And our esteemed origanization All India Tax Practitioners assocition also have not done anything in this regard
Hence I strongly support the first creation of the best academy, train, educate, unite and fight for introduction of GST Practitioners bill before implementation of GST in India
As per constitution we have right to equality. But in the current scenario CA is encroaching the field of other professionals. Govt of India should provide the equal rights to each professional and limit the monopoly of CA in this behalf.
the CA (who knowns only accounts) is allowed to attend as ‘Agent’. —–is highly dis-respect to CA profession and shows author’s lack of awareness about CA profession.
Advocates in general are more demanding with regards to questioning the rights and hence they are not favored either by revenue Detp., nor the ruling governments. Only professionals with commercial and flexible out look will be will be allowed to enjoy. I sincerely appreciate Advocate Deepak Bapat in this regard.
Why only, CA, CMA, Advocates and CS are allowed to attend before authority and not Commerce graduate and Employee of the company.
Commerce graduates are studying accounts as well as tax and so the same employee of the company (Who may be a qualified CA, CMA, CS or commerce graduate).
Moreover employee knows transaction better than any consultant/Tax practitioner/CA/CMA/CS
Great information . yes , ca is not great of taxation and appliant tribunal . thanks for remainder to all of us ,including ca also.
Thanks for sharing & posting the Information , what C.A. do , he will come at the end of finical year and verify the accounts , we are doing the every month and filling the returns , on the basis of that he weill finalize the account and submit to IT department
A person who expert in accounts can understand taxation very well, income tax, sales tax and excise are linked with accounts. Advocates does not have in depth knowledge of accounts, debit credit, balance sheet, audit, accounting standards, ERP, Information technology and company law.
Have you go through CA syllabus and curriculum?
I posted a critic comment for this article, but it was removed. So, it means that only positive comments are retained and any criticisms are removed… this is not professional approach….!!!
THAT THE TIME HAS COME TO SAY BYE BYE TO CAs. ALL THE TAX ADVOCATES SHOULD UNITE UNDER ONE PLATFORM. THE PLATFORM IS ASSOCIATION F TAX LAWYERS HO DELHI. ALL THE TAX ADVOCATES ARE REQUESTED TO CONTACT THE AUTHER VIA MAIL OR THROUGH PHONE
Why not write directly to our Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi on his portal pmindia.gov.in/en/interact-with-honble-pm/
I have done it. Request all to do the same for greater impact.
While author has put good observation, it is not right to say that CAs know only accounts!!! In fact, I have seen many CAs who are
-having very good logical thinking and interpretation of the law in many areas of the practice that they do.
-reviewing contracts in big organisations although it might have been drafted by legal team
Professional bodies of CA, CS, ICWA are much more disciplined as compared to other bodies, and anything wrong noticed by these bodies are being undertaken very seriously by respective boards as compared to other bodies.
We can write many things as Pros and Cons of each of these professional qualifications, but ultimate objective should be to have some benchmark to identify appropriately qualified persons with regard to accounts, commerce, and legal interpretation skills. Although many of the commerce graduates or advocates might be having good knowledge, but it becomes difficult to identify people with required skills in absence of advanced qualification like CA, CS, ICWA, which are considered as the toughest courses in Commerce stream.
If we take a random sample of 1000 CA/CS/ICWA and another random sample of 1000 commerce graduates or advocates, the outcome of knowledge-test will be very clear that majority of first sample will have much better skills of logical thinking and/or interpretation as compared to majority of second sample!
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 Ac. 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.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.
I strongly support the opinions expressed by the learned author. All the professionals are required for the Society to provide specialised services in their own field. No one shall encroach in to others field in one or the other plea.It is the high time for the Govt PV India to enact Tax Professionala Act to safe guard the interests of all the tax practitioners. The discrimination amongst CAs, Advocates, CMAs, ITPS, STPs shall be eliminated. The Govt should not ignore the real contributors to Tax network in the ground field. I appreciate the Author for bringing up a meaningful discussion on the burning issue.
I completely vouch for what ever is expressed by the author in this article. The mindset needs to be changed and more and more such thinking and awareness should spread among the professionals so that we can see that in the coming years this so called monopoly by particular profession wades away.
CAs are not unqualified persons as stated in the article. They are having one of the best syllabus including detailed study on Taxation Laws, Audit and Accounts. It was childish to say that the knowledge level of a CA is equal to that of a Commerce graduate. You are justified in raising your issue or requesting for inclusion on merits. But that should not be done by belittling other professions. Advocates and CAs are created by well thought statutes made for the purpose. If you people have equal standing or Merits in appearing before authorities you are free to do so. But it should not be seen as a challenge to CAs. It is a foolish statement to say that CAs know only accounts. AUDIT is the domain of the CAs. No doubt about that. The CA profession is created specifically for AUDIT, ACCOUNTS and TAXATION. The language in the article shows the immature thought process of the writer without understanding the reality.
With due respect , I suggest you to revisit sec 2(2) of the ICAI Act (such other services (not exhaustive )- 26 other services listed )
I request you not to pass such loose statements
For better governance of tax laws only CAs should be allowed to certify compliance report
Same opinion. That CA Knows only accounts is a completely absurd statement. CAs have knowledge of all areas. And I believe that CAs have practical as well as theoretical in depth knowledge pertaining to applicability of sections in the Act which most of the other practitioners lack though they may be having working knowledge. For GST I believe it is CAs who can visualize a business perspective from all angels of taxation.
(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.
With due respect, I suggest you to revisit sec 2(2) of ICAI Act , (such other services – 26 other services given) .
I request you not to give such loose statements
Latest policy decision of learned officials in Finance Ministry, Govt. of India to expand the definition of “Accountant” to include related professionals in DTC-2013 read with delegated legislation Section 320(2)(iii) is highly appreciated. But, in order to give full effect for the same, it is necessary to involve all knowledgeable persons in the field to improve/enhance compliance & revenue. Therefore, Tax Practitioners Law required for India to enable well diversified group of tax professionals to practice tax law in India. Our Central Govt. should come out with substantial legislation; introduce Tax Practitioners Bill covering all five class of tax law professionals of India. Such Tax Practitioners Bill should be introduced with “Preamble” stating that “Other than Advocates are also practicing tax law in India, in order to protect them & also in the interest of Govt. revenue, this Tax Practitioners Bill has been introduced”. Then such Tax Practitioners Law can not be struck down in view above court verdicts. US Treasury Circular No.230 for regulations governing practice before the Internal Revenue Service of Income-Tax Deptt. in USA & Tax Agent Service Act of Australia are very good examples for consideration of Ministry of Finance, Government of India to have similar Tax Practitioners Law in India also, to generate tax professionals for widening genuine tax base & number of assesses.
It is rather illoical to say that a chartered accountant creates monopoly under the gst act It is only on the basis of the qualification acquired by him by undergoing a difficult professional skill development course prescribed by the Mca. All those who envy this specialisation, should undergo this path and then ony they should come out with their envious blabberings.
Dear Deepak,
I don’t echo with above article, CA is not only an expert of accounts and audit but to be honest accounts & audit are just two of the several pillars of his/her expertise. CA undergo extensive studies & training in Direct and Indirect taxes at both intermediate and final level. A CA have a holistic business knowledge and not only just knowledge of taxation laws. Whereas an Advocate only have knowledge of Laws and hardly have any knowledge on accounting, auditing, costing, Information technology, etc. which are important for conduction an effective audit & hence CA should be most preferred professional for Audit under GST
Regards
Jayant
With due respect, I suggest you to revisit section 2(2) of ICAI act – (renders such other service – has listed down 26 other services that can be carried out)
Request you not to make loose statements like these
Dear Mr. Bapat,
you need to update your knowledge about CA, as you stated in your article (“CA who knowns only accounts”) is completely incorrect. 90% of govt. Tax revenue is collected through CA only,
you are an Advocate & Sales Tax consultant, could you plz explain if Sale Tax was your Part of academic, I know it was not, though you provide consultancy in Sales Tax, and CA entire course is base on Tax, Cost and Accounts
Request you whenever you write any article, you should have knowledge of subject matter first
Regards
(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)
Policy decision of Finance Ministry, Govt. of India in the Congress regime to expand the definition of “Accountant” to include related professionals in DTC-2013 for the purpose of Tax Audit under Direct Taxes Code read with delegated legislation Section 320(2)(iii) is highly appreciated. But, I do not understand why this was not incorporated in the Income-Tax Act till date.
Other than Advocates can not appear before revenue authority on own motion by the strength of power of attorney against the notice issued to the client. But other than Advocates can definitely appear before revenue authority against specific summons issued to him.
I do 100% agree with the view of Advocate Deepak Bapat in this article. I am of the further opinion that such orders passed under proposed GST Law can not be appealed before the appellate authority.
Great information. Yes, Central Govt., should do this.
I am too in support of you, it will be a growth factor under GST.
But Sir, saying that CA knows only accounts is a statement given without application of mind.