ACIT Vs Kerry Indev Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT, Chennai)
Appearing for ITAT Before CIC Does Not Disqualify Counsel Before ITAT: Chennai Bench Rejects DR’s “Conflict of Interest” Objection & Deprecates Obstruction of Judicial Work
DR Raises “Conflict of Interest” Objection
The CIT-DR objected to the appearance of an advocate belonging to M/s. V. Ramachandran Advocates and a chartered accountant associated with the matter. The advocate had earlier represented the CPIO/APIO of the ITAT, Chennai, before the Central Information Commission in RTI appeals filed by the CIT-DR.
According to the CIT-DR, once the advocate represented the ITAT before the CIC, he became counsel for the institution. His subsequent appearance for assessees before the same Tribunal could allegedly create an impression of bias, compromise neutrality & jeopardise the Revenue’s interests.
The Revenue further contended that the concerned Member or Bench ought to recuse itself from matters represented by such counsel.
Administrative Representation Is Not Judicial Conflict
The Tribunal rejected the objection at the threshold. It clarified that the advocate had represented the ITAT’s RTI Cell in its institutional & administrative capacity, and not any Member in an individual or personal dispute.
The mere engagement of counsel to defend an administrative order of the CPIO before the CIC did not create any personal, professional or financial relationship with Members hearing income-tax appeals.
