Case Law Details
Daechang Seat Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai)
In the case of Daechang Seat Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT at ITAT Chennai, a complex legal dispute has arisen, centering around the concept of ‘conflict of interest.’ This article offers a comprehensive examination of the case, encompassing its historical context, the arguments presented, and the legal framework governing conflicts of interest. We will thoroughly analyze whether a genuine conflict exists and assess its potential repercussions on income-tax proceedings.
Background of the Case: The crux of the matter is the objection raised by Dr. S. Palanikumar, CIT-DR, regarding the participation of advocate Shri I. Dinesh from Shri V. Ramachandran, Advocates, and Shri N Arjun Raj, a Chartered Accountant, in appeals before ITAT. The dispute traces its origins to Dr. Palanikumar’s RTI application, which sought video recordings of virtual hearings but was subsequently rejected. He then escalated the issue to the Central Information Commission (CIC), where Shri I. Dinesh represented ITAT.
The ‘Conflict of Interest’ Allegation: Dr. Palanikumar contended that a ‘conflict of interest’ existed because Shri Dinesh and Arjun Raj represented both ITAT and their clients. This article delves into the principles of administrative law and legal ethics related to conflicts of interest within the legal profession. It explicates that lawyers must avoid conflicts and obtain informed consent from clients when their interests are at risk.
Lack of Financial or Personal Interest Conflicts: The article firmly establishes that there are no financial or personal interest conflicts, either from the lawyers or the ITAT members. It emphasizes that similar situations, where lawyers and ITAT members assume dual roles, are not necessarily indicative of a conflict of interest. It cites an example of the Additional Solicitor General representing both ITAT and the Income-tax Department.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
