Tax Community and professionals has made the above demands also to Elected Representatives, CBDT and Finance Ministry by writing on social media, Websites, giving written representation and sending email to all the concerned authorities but all such efforts failed to gain any result.
Further many tax professionals has also commented on Face book page of ICAI President CA. K. Raghu requesting to make presentation to concerned authorities for extension of due date of ITR and also questioned the benefit from extension of due date of TAR without extension of due date of ITR, which has not elicited any response from him till yesterday.
In view of the same some of the members of ICAI has decided to fight the issue of extension of due date of TAR without extension of TAR due date on there own and filed an appeal in Delhi high Court on on Friday 5th September 2014 vide Mahesh Kumar & Co. vs. UOI and Others in Court no 2 of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Siddharth Mridul. Writ Petition was listed for Monday 8th September 2014 vide Diary no. 162371/2014. W.P.(C) 5990/2014 and placed for Final Hearing hearing on 15th September, 2014.
Notices issued to Union of India through Revenue Secretary & Chairman CBDT for final disposal of WRIT on 15 September 2014.
Further Update
In addition to above it has also come to our knowledge that CA Rajni Shah from Gujarat has also filed a writ in Gujarat High Court against the extension of Due date of Tax Audit Report without extending the due date of ITR.
It has also come to our knowledge from unconfirmed sources that Some of the members of ICAI are also in the process of Filing a Writ in Rajasthan High Court.
We hope the good sense will prevail and CBDT will atleast extend the due date of ITR to 30.11.2014 for Tax Audit Cases for AY 2014-15, if it cannot deffer the implementation of Revised Tax Audit Report to A.Y. 2015-16.
Some of the Interesting Post on the subject on our website are as follows :-
1. Completing Income Tax Return without Completing Tax Audit Report
Author Bio
Statement of Satyanarayana – Mr. BSK Rao could not able to pass CA become a tax consultant and using the CAs as Benami auditors to get signature to the tax audit files developed by his father after his father’s demise.
Dear Shimoga CAs, kindly give answer to the statement of your fellow CA Professional Sri.Satyanarayana. Because, as per his statement, you are all benami CAs or ICAI (Financials) issued benami Certificates to you all.
I THINK ALL NAVAGRAHAS ARE LOOKING AT ICAI (FINANCIALS). THEREFORE IT IS RIGHT TIME ICAI (FINANCIALS) SHOULD CHANGE ITS ATTITUDE & APPROACH AND CONSIDER THE INTEREST OF NATION & RELATED PROFESSIONALS IN ALL ITS ACTIONS & SHOULD PROVE ITS SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Section (2) (2) of The Chartered Accountant Act, 1949 says,
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—
(i) engages himself in the practice of accountancy; or
(ii) offers to perform or performs services involving the auditing or verification of financial transactions, books, accounts or records, or the preparation, verification or certification of financial accounting and related statements or holds himself out to the public as an accountant; or
(iii) renders professional services or assistance in or about matters of principle or detail relating to accounting procedure or the recording, presentation or certification of financial facts or data; or]
(iv) renders such other services as, in the opinion of the Council, are or may be rendered by a chartered accountant [in practice]; and the words “to be in practice” with their grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.
IT IS VERY MUCH CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE INTERPRETATION ITSELF MENTIONED IN Chartered Accountant Act, 1949 that,
Practice of Chartered Accountants is restricted to “Financial Accounting” matters only… than why they are illegally involving themselves in the “Practice of Law” which is not allowed in the Act passed by the Parliament of India itself…
All the stakeholders (Advocates & BCI) must look after this intentional wrong doings by non-Advocate Institutes in the very much interest of the Legal Fraternity…
God bless Non-Advocates for doing practice in their respected areas…
Any update on PIL filed in Delhi High Court.
IN THE STATUTE BOOK OF ICAI (FINANCIALS) PRACTICE OF LAW BY THEIR MEMBERS AMOUNTS PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT. IN CONCLUSION, PRACTICE OF LAW BY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS LIABLE FOR ACTION BOTH UNDER ADVOCATES ACT & ICAI ACT
very well said Shri. Mandeep Singhji…
Practice of law:- To draft legal documents,give legal advice, interpretation of
all laws is a ” Practice of law”. ONLY ADVOCATES ARE
AUTHORIZED CLASS FOR “PRACTICE OF LAW” under section 29 of
Advocates act 1961.
Practice of Accountancy:- In case of “Chartered Accountants”their work limited
to write books of assessee & prepare true statement
of accounts.After that CA’s work comes to over. They
are authorized for ” Practice of accountancy” u/s 32
of chartered Accountant act 1949.
Q:1 what is difference between word ” Practice” and ” act” ?
Ans:- When any person have statutory write regarding any act to use it as his
Profession is called ” Practice”.
“Act” means When any person is authorized under Power of Attorney act
1872, to do any act on behalf of others. Then it is called “act”.
Main difference between them that no person authorized under POA act 1872, use it as a ” Profession”. BUT CA’s REGULARLY ENGAGED THEMSELVES IN ” UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW”. whether it is not duty of ICAI to take action against CA’s for professional misconduct under Chartered Accountants Act 1949. Whenever main act of CA’s not permits to engage themselves in any other profession except
profession of ” Accountancy”.
WHY ICAI IS NOT TAKING ANY ACTION FOR PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AGAINST CA’s for “unauthorized practice of law”. It creates doubts in mind.
NSG AND SATHYANARAYANA SIR
PLEASE CHECK BSK RAO VS CBDIT IN GOOGLE YOU WILL GET LOT OF INFORMATION ABOUT BSK RAO. CAN YOU IMAGINE HOW HE WORKS?
Sathyanarayana Sir,
Your statement also clearly reveals that Govt. can not seek voluntary compliance under Indian Taxation laws with out the assistance of Chartered Accountants. This situation should be noted by the Ministry of Finance.
Sathyanarayana Sir,
LEARNED OFFICIALS IN MINISTRY OF FINANCE REALIZED FACT THAT ICAI(FINANCIALS) HAS KEPT THE GOVT. IN DARK ROOM SINCE 1984, YEAR IN WHICH TAX AUDIT CERTIFICATE U/S 44AB INSERTED & 46 PLUS MANDATORY CA CERTIFICATES PREVAILING ON DATE IN INCOME-TAX ACT.
Sathyanarayana Sir,
Even holding your statement is true to some extent, Finance Ministry should appreciate me for avoiding the situation of “STOP FILERS”
Real truth about MR.BSK Rao revealed……..
CPIO REPLY AGAINST SEEKING WRONG CLAIMS IN TAR
CPIO denied to provide information stating that no such data has been captured in Systems Directorate as Section wise wrong claims reported in Tax Audit Report – Form No.3CD and total of amount involved in violation of provisions of Income-Tax law reported in each column No.17, 21, 23, 24 & 27 of Tax Audit Report-Form No.3CD. Accordingly this is not information as per Section 2(1) of RTI Act, 2005, and thus cannot be provided.
GROUNDS & RELIEF SOUGHT
(1) If the reply given by CPIO is upheld as correct, CPIO should answer the following questions:-
(a) What is the purpose of uploading Tax Audit Report Form No.3CD in e-filing website of Income-Tax Deptt. troubling the assesses & Non-CA Tax Professionals ?
(b) Why Deptt. is not utilizing Tax Audit Report Form No.3CD in spite of mandating it for upload ?
(2) For every act, there should be purpose behind the same. Therefore, kindly direct CPIO to provide information sought in my RTI Application or give answers to above questions raised by me.
Mr.BSK Rao is an advocate from Shimoga. His father Mr.BDK Rao, a chartered accountant had a good practice with lot number of tax audits. Mr. BSK Rao could not able to pass CA become a tax consultant and using the CAs as Benami auditors to get signature to the tax audit files developed by his father after his father’s demise. After the modification in TAR report filing system and CAs insisting to verify books of account and asking for audit evidences of the clients of Mr.BSK Rao he became jealous on ICAI and started this agitation.
If the story is wrong, please correct me.
YES YOU ARE CORRECTLY SAID MANDEEP SINGH JI. B S K RAO IS ALWAYAS CORRECT.
HE WANT JUSTICE ONLY
Mr,
NSG ji sir,
Don’t make presumptions, that persons,who are fighting against injustice have less work than others. I think it is rule of god, who talks with logic are often intelligent persons. As per I personally know with god blessed Sh. BSK Rao is a intelligent person. I don’t know much about you,but I can presume that Sh. BSK RAO ji have near about three times work than you.
Sir,Self respected persons are always fighting against injustice & money minded persons often adjust them according to situation. Previous History is evidence for it. IT IS MY REQUEST PLEASE NOT JUDGE ANYBODY’s WORK ON BEHALF OF PRESUMPTIONS. I think, you have become habitual to certify vague presumptions as like PROJECT REPORTS & PROJECTED BALANCE SHEETS.
Mr,
NSG ji,
Your absolutely wrong, Mr. Bsk Rao ji not attacking on Chartered Accountant profession. But actually we are on defending side. Chartered Accountants deliberately through illegal trespass have attacked on “Advocate Profession”.
we are just trying to defend advocate profession because accountants are not satisfied with accounting job. Now they are willing to become Advocate.
New Breeds and trend in reporting and Overriding the Provisions of law of Land conveniently !!! No body cares? Laisez Fare!!!
31.03.1994
Auditors remark.Qualification in Auditors Report :
5. In our opinion and to the best of our information and according to the explanations given to us , the accounts subject to Note No 7 in respect of charge of depreciation
Note in Accounting policy
7. The Sales of equipment division includes service charges amounting to Rs 65,00,000/- which in respect of amount charged to Saw Pipes Division for services rendered in respect of technical know how, design work, development and manufacturing of plant and machinery related services for SAW Pipe Division at Rs 40,lacs less Depreciation 0.54 & Rs 25,.00 lacs under preoperative expenses account, which result in increase of profit by Rs 64.46 lacs .
1. Reply given by directors 31.03.1994 :- Directors Report. Every qualification in Auditors Report has to be explained fully by Directors in their repot to Shareholders. Directors abstained from giving any explanations. But said as :-
Auditors’ Report read with note No 6 & 7 OF SCHEDULE 20 in the NOTES FORMING PART OF ACCOUNTS in this regard are self -explanatory
The Note no 5 in the Auditors’ Report read with note No 6 & 7 OF SCHEDULE 20 in the NOTES FORMING PART OF ACCOUNTS in this regard are self -explanatory.
31.03.2013
Auditors Note in Accounting Policy .
Tii the previous year cost of Raw Material , Work in process, Finished Goods , Components , Stores spares ,valued at FIFO Method. In the Current year the company changed its accounting policy from FIFO method to weighted average method. The Management Believes that such change would result in a mere appropriate presentation of financial statement in line with industrial practice. Consequently inventories and profit before taxation are higher by Rs98.37 Lacs .
No comment given by Management in Director’s Report nor Auditor’s gave ultimate effect and correct profit shown by Company!!!!!
in 31.03.2014 Directors Report stated that :=
6.11 There are no qualification in the Auditor’s Report on the Financial Statement of the Company.
These are the breeds created and carried out. ITAT Remarks given a red light to our professional standards carried out.
These creates a very bad impression of our profession in world over.
Vivian Richards Sir,
You are 100% correct Sir, ICAI(Financials) should not have control of both regulation of CAs & conducting examination for CA Course. Govt. should interfere in the matter & vest the power of coaching and examination to some other external agencies like that of CPA in USA. This is the need of the hour.
NSG SIR, I THINK WHAT YOU SAID, IS THE JOB ASSIGNED TO ME BY THE GOD & ALSO THE EXPECTATION OF THE GOD
Dear Mr.BSK RAO
Are you working for the interest of tax professionals? Copy and paste articles from law books and news papers does not serve any purpose.Please go to court and prove what you wish for the interest of the Tax professional.But you cannot perform well in court because you dont have the capacity or ability to perform in courts.You are a biased and narrow minded person.It appears as if every morning you wake up and attack chartered accountants in various forums. Dont you feel bad for this type of life style.Please try to do some good things for the rest of your life.
Sir,
kailash goyal ji,
you have commented very good. We are following Reports u/s 44AB in income tax laws till today since 1984 without evaluating its output. These reports are not beneficial on revenue as well as on assessee side. Now these reports have become part of litigation. Due to that government loosing revenue since 1984, In present CBDT is facing unnecessary litigation.
I think only solution for it, delete all reports from income tax. out of them one main is u/s 44AB. In commuter era, we need to change 30 years old trend to get certificates. – See more at: https://taxguru.in/income-tax/interview-tax-audit-report-petitioners.html#comment-1116619
Attorney-in-fact:- Can be given to anyone for ” act” on behalf of prinicipal
Attorney-in-law:- Only can be given to a lawyer for ” Practice of law”
Thank you Mandeep Singh for supplying the above information
CORRECTED COMMENT
IN FACT THERE IS NO SUCH CERTIFICATES/REPORTS IN REVENUE SIDE IN ANY COUNTRY THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. ITS ONLY IN INDIA LIKE THIS. THAT IS WHY IN INDIA ONLY 2% OF THE POPULATION ARE UNDER THE TAX NET OF INCOME-TAX DEPTT.
OUR PRIME MINISTER IS AGAINST THIRD PARTY CERTIFICATION AND ATTESTATION. I HOPE THAT NDA GOVT. WILL DELETE ALL CERTIFICATES & REPORTS FROM INDIAN TAXATION LAWS.
DEAR ALL TAX PROFESSIONALS & LEARNED OFFICIALS IN FINANCE MINISTRY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE TAX ADMISSION IN TAX AUDIT CASES, YOU WILL REALIZE WHAT I AM COMMENTING IS CORRECT
IN FACT THERE IS SUCH CERTIFICATES/REPORTS IN REVENUE SIDE IN ANY COUNTRY THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. ITS ONLY IN INDIA LIKE THIS. THAT IS WHY IN INDIA ONLY 2% OF THE POPULATION ARE UNDER THE TAX NET OF INCOME-TAX DEPTT.
NSG SIR, YES I AM NOT BUSY IN MY PROFESSION. I AM WORKING FOR GENUINE CAUSE OF ALL CLASS OF TAX PROFESSIONALS COVERED U/S 288 READ WITH RULE 12A OF INCOME-TAX ACT. OK SIR.
Sir,
CBDT controls all issues related to tax system. ICAI is a professional body & there should be no interference of professional body in tax related issues. No professional body should be permitted to interference in any matters related to CBDT. If such interference permitted than it can make adverse effect on policies which are made for better tax collection & for develop easy accounting system for assessees.
SIR REPORTS U/S 44AB FOR NON- CORPORATE ASSESSEES NOT REQUIRED FOR SMOOTH TAX COLLECTION. IT IS NOT BENEFICIAL TILL TODAY SINCE 1984.I AM IN STRONG FAVOUR THESE REPORTS IMMEDIATELY DELETED FROM INCOME TAX & OTHER TAX ACTS.
CA MEMBERS NEED NOT FILE PIL BEFORE HON’BLE HIGH COURTS. WHEN CBDT HAVE ALREADY PERMITTED TO FILE ITR WITHOUT AUDIT REPORTS. TAR need to keep separate from ITR good decision of CBDT. I think CBDT need to issue to notification to file TAR is optional not compulsory.
Dear Mr.BSK RA0
Stop your arrogance towards CA’s.You dont have any capacity or genuine cause to attack CA’s.I assume you are not busy in your profession and you dont have any clients.You are jealous of Chartered Accountants.Mr.BSK Rao please stop this behavior .
DOSRE KO GADDA KOLTA HI TO KUDHI ISME GIRNA PADEGA ? THIS IS THE SITUATION IN THE CASE OF TAX AUDIT IN INCOME-TAX ACT. IE, MOTTO OF ICAI (FINANCIALS) WHILE INSERTING TAX AUDIT CLAUSE U/S 44AB IN 1984 & 46 PLUS CA CERTIFICATES ON DATE IN INCOME-TAX ACT
CA SANDEEP KANOI SIR,
I THINK YOU ARE RESPONDING TO MY GENUINE COMMENTS SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES ? WHY NOT FOR OTHERS ?
Good spirit. Keep it up.
C A Shah D J
TO,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVT. OF INDIA,
RECENTLY DIT (SYSTEMS) GAVE REPLY TO RTI APPLICATION SEEKING SECTION WISE WRONG CLAIMS IN TAX AUDIT REPORT UPLOADED FOR ASSET. YEAR 2013-14 AS UNDER:-
NO SUCH DATA HAS BEEN CAPTURED IN THE SYSTEMS DIRECTORATE AS SECTION WISE WRONG CLAIMS REPORTED IN TAX AUDIT REPORT FROM NO.3CD AND TOTAL AMOUNT INVOLVED IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF INCOME-TAX LAW REPORTED IN EACH COLUMN NO.17,21,23,24 & 27 OF TAX AUDIT REPORT FORM NO.3CD. ACCORDINGLY THIS IS NOT INFORMATION AS PER SECTION 2(1) OF RTI ACT, 2005 AND THUS CAN NOT BE PROVIDED.
NOW DIT (SYSTEMS) SHOULD PUT QUESTION TO ITSELF, WHY TAX AUDIT REPORT SHOULD BE UPLOADED TO E-FILING WEBSITE OF INCOME-TAX DEPTT. WHEN THE INCOME-TAX DEPPT. IS NOT UTILIZING THE SAME TO CONCLUDE QUALITY ASSESSMENT AS STATED IN E-FILING PROJECT AGREEMENT.
Particulars of Total Income-tax admitted in tax audit cases for Asst. Year 2012-13 & 2013-14 that relates to return filed in ITR-4, 5 & 6 as provided by CPC, Bangalore as at 28.05.2014 are as under:-
Particulars…………Asst. Year 2012-13………..Asst. Year 2013-14
ITR-4 Income-Tax Admitted..Rs…..23,986 Crores…Rs…..23,952 Crores
ITR-5 Income-Tax Admitted..Rs…..20,712 Crores…Rs…..21,556 Crores
ITR-6 Income-Tax Admitted..Rs…2,92,266 Crores…Rs…2,34,456 Crores
Assesses carrying on the business in the status as Individual, HUF & Partnership Firms file return in Form No.ITR-4 & 5 and covers dealers in agricultural & industrial output as well as service sector. Ltd Companies file return in Form No.ITR-6 and covers industrial output & service Sector. Margin derived by farmers is not taxed in Income-Tax Act, but margin derived by next sellers of such agricultural output (usually Individual, HUF & Partnership Firms) is taxed in their hands in Income-Tax Act. Presuming that output of Ltd Company assesses reach the ultimate consumer in three stages & considering tax admission in Ltd Company assesses as above & 50% of such Ltd Company assesses do business with Individual, HUF & Partnership Firms covered by tax audit, who are in between Ltd Companies & retailers and also considering Individual, HUF & Partnership Firms engaged in activity of re-selling agricultural output & service sector, I am of the strong view that combined Income-Tax admission as per return filed in ITR-4 & 5 covered by tax audit U/s. 44AB should have crossed at least Rs. 15,00,000/-Crores. (Basis being 80:20 ratio of Agriculture & Industrial Output in India.
Because of the above position of tax admission prevailing on date, I am of the strong view that all Certificates & Reports in Indian taxation laws require deletion with immediate effect to widen genuine tax base of assesses in India. Reason being, this is causing strict hurdle for voluntary compliance from the side of Non-CA Tax Professionals, who outnumber CAs.
PRACTICE OF TAX LAWS OF CAS BY THE STRENGTH OF POA VOID CONTRACT
Interpretation clause of indian contract act 1872.
2. Interpretation-clause.-
In this Act the following words and expressions are used in the following senses, unless a contrary intention appears from the context:—
(a) When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to such act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal:
(b) When the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted.A proposal, when accepted, becomes a promise:
(c) The person making the proposal is called the “promisor”, and the person accepting the proposal is called the “promisee”:
(d) When, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing, something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise:
(e) Every promise and every set of promises, forming the consideration for each other, is an agreement:
(f) Promises which form the consideration or part of the consideration for each other are called reciprocal promises:
(g) An agreement not enforceable by law is said to be void:
(h) An agreement enforceable by law is a contract:
(i) An agreement which is enforceable by law at the option of one or more of the parties thereto, but not at the option of the other or others, is a voidable contract:
(j) A contract which ceases to be enforceable by law becomes void when it ceases to be enforceable
(g) An agreement not enforceable by law is said to be void
First of all, we need to understand what is difference between word ” PRACTICE” and ” ACT”.
1) PRACTICE:- Word ” Practice” is right granted under any statue for professional activities. To carry on any profession. Advocates have such right under Advocates act 1961.
2) ACT:- Word ” Act” means any specific work given to perform. Who is authorized for such act not use it as ” Profession”. (In C. Venkatachalam vs Ajitkumar C. Shah & Ors on 29 August, 2011) Supreme court given directions in para no. 110. Authorized agents not use it as profession.
Conclusion:- Nobody is authorized under any law ” For Practice of law” except advocates. So for any POA given for ” Practice of law” is a void contract.
very very useful.
Original Income-Tax Act, 1961 was well drafted by learned officials in Finance Ministry & it was capable of meeting the expectation of the Govt. in all future events, except requiring amendments for events/changes taking place in this 21st Century. Disturbance to the original intention of legislature in Income-Tax Act, 1961 started in 1984 by the intervention of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India by way of inserting mandatory Tax Audit Certificate U/s 44AB by only Chartered Accountants. This was also cautioned by Sri.P.C.Padhi, former Chairman, Central Board of Revenue and Deputy Controller & Auditor General of India, Sri.D.K.Rangnekar former Editor, Economic Times, who were the members of Direct Taxes Committee, popularly known as Wanchoo Committee & gave dissenting note on the issue. On date, there are 46 Plus Mandatory CA Certificates in Income-Tax Act, which were inserted on the behest of ICAI (Financials) since from 1984. Because of 46 Plus mandatory CA Certificates in Income-Tax Act, 1961, Non-CA Tax Professionals viz. Legal Practitioners, Cost & Management Accountants, Company Secretaries & Income-Tax Practitioners can not exercise the authority granted in the statute fully & independently. Here, crux of the matter is CAs enjoy both the power of certification & representation, but Non-CAs are authorized only to represent the assesses. This is practically causing strict hurdle for voluntary compliance & assesses prefer to approach only CAs for tax compliance, resulting in unemployment of Non-CA Tax Professionals & full employment to CAs. This position of Non-CA Tax Professionals is comparable to decree of court which can not be executed.
Dissenting note of Wanchoo Committee has become true now after a period of 30 years ?
Thanks for the information and hope to get good response from the CBDT.
The CBDT is not in its senses.
They are promptly collecting Advance tax Charging penalties \interest for defaults THEN WHY CANNOT IT ISSUE THESE FORMS AT THE TIME OF BUDGET itself.Any person should be able to file his return on any day after the year end. Instead of Institute all the tax audit entities should come to streets for this kind of inhuman attitude of the CBDT taking to a joy ride the entities & professionals
THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS MUST REMEMBER THAT THE SECTION 44AB [TAX AUDIT] WAS
INTRODUCED IN THE YEAR 1984 ONLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS WHO ONLY REPRESENTED WITH THE FINANCE MINISTRY SAYING THAT THEY ARE ONLY VERY VERY VERY MUCH HIGHLY QUALIFIED PERSONS TO CONDUCT TAX AUDIT.
SO IT IS NOT PROPER ON THE PART OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS TO FILE PIL IN DELHI AND
OTHER HIGH COURTS AGAINST THE REVISED TAX AUDIT REPORT
The Chartered Accountants must remember that in the year 1984 the said section
44AB [tax Audit] was introduced for the benfit of Chartered Accountants only.
great….
This petition should be consider by honerable benches…
Central council & regional councils should come forward for the cause of the members. They are elected by the members for the members.
Thanks to all members for their efforts.
I believe there was a similar case in last year too and the court had given the extension for filing the ROI also.
Permanent solution is need for this kind administrative problem of CBDT.
Supporting CA community
These petitions are for Good cause of action and should be considered by the Hon’ble Benches. It is also requested to all professionals who are directly effected support to the petitions in the interest of public cause.
Good move.