List of CAs issuing more than 400 TAR; 18.87% CAs issued more than 45 Tax Audit Report- CAG
Control on number of tax audit assignment
In order to maintain the quality of tax audit to be conducted by CAs, ICAI issued Guidelines15 for the Members under the provisions of the Chartered Accounts Act, 1949. It prescribed a limit of 45 tax audit assignments that can be under taken by a CA in a FY under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In case of a Firm, specified number of tax audit assignments shall be applicable for every partners of the Firm. In view of the enhancement of professional competence of members to perform service in IT enabled environment, ICAI raised (February 2014) the limit of tax audit assignments from 45 to 60, to be made effective from audits conducted during FY 2014-15 onwards.
We observed that there was no system in field offices of ITD to see that a CA had not crossed the limit prescribed by ICAI on number of tax audit assignments. ICAI has prescribed Form of Tax Audit particulars to be maintained by members/Firm. We approached ICAI (August and September 2014) to intimate whether any mechanism exit to ensure the compliance of its guidelines by CAs. It was informed by ICAI (September 2014) that maintenance of records is self regulatory mechanism and the information so maintained can be called upon by ICAI for checking adherence of the guidelines. However, any formal complaint received by ICAI was acted upon within the framework provided in the Chartered Accountants Act and the Misconduct Rules framed there under.
As per the information provided by DGIT (Systems) of ITD (August 2014), 65,898 CAs submitted at least one TAR for AY 2013-14. Out of total 65,898 records of CAs, 81.13 per cent of CAs adhered to the limit prescribed by ICAI. Remaining 18.87 per cent of CAs (12,435 CAs) submitted more than 45 TARs. Excess number of TARs ranged from 46 to 2471. Table 3.1 shows stratification of the total number TARs issued by CAs and its percentage.
15 Council Guidelines no. 1-CA(7)/02/2008 dated 08 August 2008
Table 3.1: Stratification of total TARs issued by CA for AY 2013-14
| Range of TARs issued | Total Number of Accountants | Percentage of Total Accountants |
| 1-45 | 53,463 | 81.13 |
| 46-100 | 10,838 | 16.45 |
| 101-200 | 1,364 | 2.07 |
| 201-300 | 166 | 0.25 |
| 301-400 | 45 | 0.07 |
| 401-500 | 10 | 0.02 |
| 501-1000 | 11 | 0.02 |
| > 1000 | 1 | 0 |
| Total Accountants | 65,898 |
Table 3.2 shows top 22 CAs who issued more than 45 TARs for AY 2013-14.
Table: 3.2 showing CAs issuing more than 400 TAR for AY 2013-14
| Chartered Accountants | Membership Number | Number of TARs |
| 1. Pralay Chakraborty | 059736 | 2,471 |
| 2. Partha Pratim Mukhopadhyay | 056366 | 990 |
| 3. R Muralidharan | 024060 | 796 |
| 4. Rajesh Kumar Gupta | 074194 | 640 |
| 5. Swapan Acharyya | 062815 | 638 |
| 6. D Sundararajan | 010150 | 619 |
| 7. B C Vadivel | 206700 | 612 |
| 8. Raj Hans | 087767 | 586 |
| 9. Samir Pushpvadan Gandhi | 039251 | 551 |
| 10. Navin Agarwal | 078175 | 522 |
| 11. Poulose Shaji | 022909 | 513 |
| 12. A Kulathooran Pillai | 018792 | 510 |
| 13. Sukdeb Haider | 051185 | 494 |
| 14. Chetan Premchand Shah | 031239 | 487 |
| 15. P Ramalingam | 019516 | 478 |
| 16. Arun Kumar | 097929 | 461 |
| 17. S Vairavanathan | 004736 | 457 |
| 18. Radhakanta Das | 062863 | 428 |
| 19. Suresh Kumar Goyal | 084153 | 417 |
| 20. Hetal Bhailalbhai Dhamelia | 119864 | 415 |
| 21. TS Ventakaraman Lakshmi | 022214 | 414 |
| 22. Jai Bhagwan Mittal | 084512 | 401 |
The information available with DGIT (Systems) has not been shared by ITD to ICAI nor did ICAI approach ever to ITD to furnish such information. In view of lack of monitoring of number of tax audit assignments either by ITD or ICAI, the purpose of maintaining the quality of tax audit have suffered. As the work of tax audit assignments is voluminous work, issuing more than prescribed TARs is fraught to suffer in quality.
In the interest of revenue, the Act should have provision to prescribe for quality of tax audit assignments rather than relying on ICAI. Therefore, ITD may consider making suitable provision in the Act by restricting number of tax audit assignments in consultation with ICAI. In an automated environment of e-filing by CAs, prescribed limit can be adhered by providing suitable controls.
There is no system in ITD to validate the membership number issued by ICAI to stop unscrupulous CAs practicing the profession.
Source- http://www.saiindia.gov.in/english/index.html
Read More- Download CAG Report on Systemic issues in Tax Audit and Controls required
the system of tax audit more than quota as fixed by insitute can stop just in a minute, if ITD & ICAI bring a check point in their softwares regarding the maximum limit of tax audit report that can upload under one membership number.
but the big question is would the ICAI is serious to do that in the best interest of the profession or not to control the same by seeing the members votes to elect in the central council.
if our profession is going on in this style, the situation may come, when a CA would feel shame to introduce himself as CA
These defames the profession of C.A.
Strict Action should be taken against them as they avoid the Rules & Regulations of the Institute.
The Mother Institute’s Rules & Regulations should be followed and given respect by punishing such Culprits.
Because of their deeds the fresher Practicing Chartered Accountants strive for work.
They valued Money more than quality of Audits
It is important to note that Chartered Accountant play key role in adding revenue to the treasure of government of India. Getting CA certificate is not that much easy.
These are done in favour of Un-qualified Accountants & Clients to oblize them.
ICAI took 10 long years to prosecute Satyam CAs .Come on ICAI you can do better in this case 20 Years…………
A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE DONE BY ICAI AND CBDT AND ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN AGAINST THOSE FOUND GUILTY.TO STOP SUCH ERRORS/ACTIONS IN FUTURE PROPER CONTROLS SHOULD BE IN PLACE.
Astonishing
Unbelievable ! Even The Income tax Dept. Website having so many number of controls on the registration of CA and Assessee was not able to Handle the crossing the limits (45 or 60) by Chartered Accountants. This resembles the poor Input controls maintained by IT Website.
Dear All,
In my view, Ministry of Finance should issue tokens/some codes to each practicing CA to issue TAR. It should be limited in numbers and who so ever has violated the rules set by Govt. should be punished to give a lesson to all the professional engaged into Certification business…
Atleast now institute has to wake up from sleep and look in to the regulatory aspects in order to control members from non-compliance of Income Tax provisions.
I think ICSI has some system to have contol over monitoring maximum no. of
Compliance certificate issued by a practicing CS.Kindly try to clarrify
We want the comments from ICAI. Being a Tax Practitioners we are now being cheated by such type of chartered Accountant
Proper monitoring system should be put in place. This being the first time ICAI has come into knowledge, the liberal view may be taken and stern warning be issued to all the members that this will not be tolerated in future and strict steps be taken.
To uphold values and trust in CA profession the wrongdoers should be punished.
LEARNED CA.MAHESH KUMAR SIR,
You have rightly said that Auditor should be appointed by CBDT to get wrong claims in tax audit report to conclude quality assessment. Therefore, the present concept of tax audit in all Indian taxation laws is totally wrong & I do not understand why Govt. is behind audit under various taxation laws, verifying same data of the assesses again & again and leads to increased cost of tax compliance. Reason being, assesses sign affidavit format called verification in the return of income, which makes him liable for imprisonment which may be extend to seven years with fine U/s 277 of Income-Tax Act, in the event of furnishing false information. (See also Section 181 of IPC). Further, it was held in the case of CIT Vs HCIL Kalindee ARSSPL Delhi HC Dt.29.07.2013 that mere CA Certificate do not establish the bonafide of assesses claim and CIT Vs G.M.Dandekar 22 ITR 235 (Mad)it was held that CA’s can not be made accountable to Income-Tax Deptt. as they are acting in representative capacity.
Dear Sir,
please publish the entire list of CA who signed Tax Audit Report exceeding Specified Limit because this will help us in future to identify those CA before signing
Surajit Mondal
The system of appointing tax auditors should change,Auditors should be appointed by CBDT in a transparent manner to enhance revenue and quality of work.Since tax auditors are appointed by clients and paid by clients so auditors will protect their interest and not of ITD.
CAG in the their Report NO.32 of 2012 (Performance Audit) finally concluded that “Objective of introduction of tax audit defeated on date”. ICAI (Financials) while objecting to expansion of definition of “Accountant” in DTC in its Pre-Budget memorandum on Direct Taxes stated that conducting tax audit by Non-CAs may result in leakage of revenue. Please any one decide CAG Report is correct or ICAI defense raised in it Pre-Budget Memorandum is correct ?
CA. Shasank M, Tadepalligudem Sir,
As per the information received against RTI from Office of Income-Tax Officers throughout India, the composition of Tax Professionals are as under:-
Tax Advocates 25%
Chartered Accountants 15%
Reg. Tax Practitioners (ITP&STP) 20%
Tax Consultants (Un-Reg. ITP/STP/CMA/CS) 40%
Tax Practitioners & Tax Consultants mentioned above are supporting clients
on regular basis by way of filing monthly VAT Returns, Income-Tax Matters in Salary & Direct Refund cases. Tax Advocates & Chartered Accountants are assisting large tax payers for giving compliance under Income-Tax Act. Tax Advocates are facing the problem of roaming around in search empty slots of CAs for getting tax audit certificate during due dates. This type of situation prevailing in India only. In view of 46 Plus CA Certificates in Income-Tax Act, Income-Tax Deptt. is not getting compliance from all VAT dealers handled by Tax Practitioners & Tax Consultants. This is the real situation on date.
Sirs —- I like the opinion of members and opinion of Mr. Anil Kumar Prajapati
that Our Institute and I.T. Deptt. ( CBDT ) should jointly take action and
immdly prepare a software that no member can upload more than specified
TAR, in the interest of all other members and to maintain quality of
Tax audits, otherwise a day will come when public will laugh on our
respectable profession . Thanks and request for fast action in this
regard, so that in coming year no member can dare to sign more than
specified limit of audits.
Typing error regretted
Tax Admission in ITR-6 for the Asst. Year 2012-13 Rs 2,92,266 Crores
CA. Shasank M, Tadepalligudem Sir,
(01) Particulars of total Income-tax admitted in tax audit cases for Asst. Year 2012-13 & 2013-14 that relates to return filed in Form No.ITR-4, 5 & 6 as provided by CPC, Bangalore as at 28.05.2014 are as under (Proof for huge revenue loss due to monopoly of tax audit in Income-Tax Act by only Chartered Accountants) :-
Particulars……………..Asst. Year 2012-13…Asst. Year 2013-14
ITR-4 Income-Tax Admission..Rs….23,986 Crores..Rs….23,952 Crores
ITR-5 Income-Tax Admission..Rs….20,712 Crores..Rs….21,556 Crores
ITR-6 Income-Tax Admission..Rs…,92,266 Crores..Rs..2,34,456 Crores
(02) 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 return filers in Form NO.ITR-4 & 5) taxed in Income-Tax Act. Considering the return filers in Form NO.ITR-4 & 5 engaged in all activity of Manufacture/Selling/Re-Selling Industrial, Agricultural output & Service Sector, I am of the strong view that combined total Income-Tax admission as per return filed in Form NO.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 Agricultural & Industrial output in India. Return filers in Form No.ITR-4 & 5 also include re-sellers of 80% Agricultural output of India & re-sellers relates to major portion of 20% Industrial output & Service Sector of Ltd Companies filing return in Form No.ITR-6).
Anoop Kumar Mishra Sir,
CBDT has retained outdated mandatory tax audit clause Section 44AB of Income-Tax Act for Non-Corporates assesses since almost three decades, that too in this computer era, without evaluating its utility & also not providing ways or mechanism to search out empty slots of CA Signature to assesses/Non-CA Tax Professionals, which is causing strict hurdle for voluntary compliance, due to tax audit ceiling fixed for each CA by ICAI without considering demographic spread of practicing Chartered Accountants. In this situation, you are again talking about MECHANISM TO CONTROL & CHECK THE LIMIT OF AUDIT Sir. How far this is correct Anoop Kumar Mishra Sir. This is the main issue I am fighting with CBDT since from 2001.
Consequences of such act is that freshers have no tax audit clients as all the assignments are done by experienced CAs thereby making freshers difficult to run offices.
Dear BSK Rao
1. A Less than 50% of the Work-force is dependent on Agricultural & Allied activities, which remain outside purview of Income Tax. Where as that is not the case for USA & Australia. Compliance with Tax Laws is the primary responsibility of the Tax Payer, Tax payers are very smart these days, its not that they lack Tax knowledge, they are looking for Tax Avoidance. Unless people come out of this mindset, any number of Tax practitioners (CAs & Non-CAs) it does not matter. The Income Tax Department is very strict and vigilant these days, it is chasing very hard behind people avoiding taxes, so the % person under the Tax net will come up.
2. There is no management of Demand & Supply gap by ICAI. The Institute has defined standard for what is the required level of knowledge a CA should be possessing. The Students meeting the requirement shall clear the exams and obtain the qualification. All Audit office have staff (mainly CA Articles) and there is no such over-burdening of work. Not all the CA will have over-burden of work, if the client feels that he is not given proper service, he can go some other CA for Tax Audit.
3. Only Tax Audit Works & Other Certification is restricted to CAs. There is so much of other works like filing of Returns, TDS, etc left open. In general, CAs possess the required knowledge for conducting Tax Audits since the course is tuned in such a manner. Not all the Advocates, CMA, CSs have tax knowledge, some of them(2-3%) acquire the knowledge out of their interest. You cannot open the gate for all, this will result in blunders and many will misuse this provision. If these persons are curious issue TARs, let them study CA. Only Doctors should see patients.
I also request other CAs to back up my views, instead of crying on our own profession based on baseless facts.
all these infomation is false because if you can check with any one of above membership number in icai website it doest tallied. please give correct infomation
The ICAI should take strong action to survive the profession and should adopt the measures which could prevent such type of wrong practices
It is very wrong. This is cheating to new member.
So I think ICAI should take action against these members.
Suggestion
Respected CA shri K Raghu Sahab —–
With due respect . I ( a Fresher CA ) would dare to bring to your kind notice
Few facts of Tax –audit.. . As per existing law a CA can do 60 audits , but do
Know that our members are doing and signing 100 to 350 audits . How they are
Doing ? Sir — they are doing for their partners who are not interested in
Tax audits. Is this a correct intention of law . I personally think , they are
Taking the benefit of clarification given by Nitish more CA in their advise
Coloumn . Sir- pl. you yourself think about the quality of work in such audits
Will be — who does and sign 300 -400 Tax-audits in a short period of two
Months whereas every –body knows that normally clients come for audits
in Last week of sept. ( I still feel our law says about members and not about partners )
Any how it is upto you to judge and decide for future policy in the interest
Profession / and or junior CAs
In the interest of profession, yours
Notification
To
Nitishmore ( A firm of CAs ) have explained as under —
It is further provided in Chapter VI of Council General Guidelines,
2008 that in case of firm of Chartered Accountants in practice,
specified number of tax audit assignments means 45 tax audit
assignments per partner of the firm, in a financial year.
Therefore, if there are 10 partners in a firm of Chartered Accountants
in practice, then all the partners of the firm can collectively sign
450 tax audit reports. This maximum limit of 450 tax audit assignments
may be distributed between the partners in any manner whatsoever. For
instance, 1 partner can individually sign 450 tax audit reports in
case remaining 9 partners are not signing any tax audit report.
It is needless to say that the tax audit assignment should be in
accordance with the Standard on Quality Control (SQC) 1: Quality
Control for Firms that Perform Audits and Reviews of Historical
Financial Information, and Other Assurance and Related Services
Engagements.
The data given in the article is very amazing. An audit is an audit whether conducted U/S 44AB or 44AD or 12A or a Statutory audit in case of companies etc. or a Bank Audit. Therefore to maintain the quality of statutory or tax audits, the ICAI should include all audits conducted by an auditor under the thrash hold limit of 60 audits per auditor. Does the ICAI think that audits conducted by a Chartered Accountant U/S 44AD or U/S 12A are not tax audits?? If it is, then the ICAI should request the Finance Minister at its own motion to abolish the condition of getting his accounts audited by an assessee U/S 44AD or 12A as it unnecessarily burdens the CA fraternity as well as the assessee and also unnecessarily waste their time and money respectively. I would also like to suggest the finance ministry to reduce the limit of net profit declared U/S 44AD from the present 8% to 4% or lower as it has been noticed that where accounts are audited under any section of the IT Act, the net profit declared and accepted is less than 3% even in some cases it is near about 1% only, so it is unjust and unconstitutional for the assessees who are covered U/S 44AD to declare their net profit @ 8% or more.
Even the ICAI, an statutory body for maintaining the standard of accounts and conducting audits, also not cover the audits conducted by an auditor U/S 44AD or 12A or Statutory Audits under the prescribed limit of 60 audits per auditor, hence there is no logic to get the accounts audited under these sections and if ICAI feels that audits U/S 44AD or 12A or Statutory audits are really audits conducted by its member auditors then why these audits are out of the limit of prescribed limit of 60 audits per auditor??
If there is a partnership firm of CAs, it means they have more work and more audits, so to maintain the quality of work, the limit of audits conducted by a CA firm should be 60 audits or more depending upon the number of partners in the firm but irrespective of individual number of audits (60) per partner of CA firm.
For control of CAs performing and e-filing more audits than the prescribed limit of audits, both ITD and ICAI should take joint action against such auditors and if found guilty then their membership should be cancelled by ICAI as a measure of disciplinary action taken against them.
IN FACT, THE CASES SELECTED & REFERRED BY CAG ON TEST CHECKING RETURNS, STATEMENTS & TAX AUDIT REPORTS ARE ALL CORPORATE CASES & NOT NON-CORPORATE CASES. THEREFORE, CAS RESIDING IN OTHER THAN METROPOLITAN CITIES SHOULD NOT BE BLAMED FOR WRONG AUDIT REPORTS. AND HENCE, THEY DESERVE TO HAVE FEATHER ON THEIR CAP.
Dear all friends,
I sincerely request my similar minded friends to initiate PIL with respect to this loss to revenue.
Who will bear this loss? ICAI, the CA himself or the public in general?
CA. Shasank M, realy I appreciate the defense raised by you, but you have to give answer for below points:-
(1) Because of indirectly confining tax practice to CAs by way of CA Certification in Indian taxation laws, still only 2.5% of population are under tax net. Whereas in USA & Australia 70% to 80% of population are under the Income-Tax Net. They have separate Tax Practitioners law in their country to enable Non-Advocates to appear before revenue authorities.
(2) Reason being, new Non-CA Tax Professionals are not entering tax practice since introduction of tax audit in 1984 on one hand. ICAI (Financials) it trying widen demand & supply gap of CAs resulted in over burdening on CAs.
(3)In view of the above facts & Supreme Court verdicts, it is right time to have unified control & regulation for all five class of tax professionals to practice exclusively in Indian taxation laws. Tax Practitioners Law is the need of the hour. Among Advocates, Cost & Management Accountants, Company Secretaries, Chartered Accountants and Registered Tax Practitioners, who wants to practice exclusively in Indian tax laws, should get mandatorily registered under this unified Tax Practitioners Law, whatever their parent body articulate is immaterial. This unified Tax Practitioners Law should also prescribe the qualifications & experience required to be possessed by all the five class of tax professionals. On date, abundant tax compliance at hand, but there is requisite tax professionals to support voluntary compliance in Indian taxation laws. As per the latest information available, there are only 2,427 Cost & Management Accountants, 5,170 Company Secretaries & 65,570 Chartered Accountants are in full time practice, who are unevenly spread throughout India. India is highly populated country; existing number of practicing CMA, CS & CA does not meet the requirement of our economy. “More persons in the line of tax practice, will escort to progress in quantum of compliance & generate more revenue to Government”. Tax Practitioners Law on the lines of US Treasury Circular No.230 is well suited to India, required for India & also need of the hour to widen genuine tax base of assesses.
It is surprising how BSK Rao and others are not commenting heavily on observations by High Courts on frivolous filing of cases by Dept and filing of cases on covered matters. Surely did the Advocates representing the Department not advise the Govt not to file the cases on covered matters as it it is overall duty of advocate to make the entire judidical system in a functioning way and not to over burden it?
CA. Bhavesh Savla
I think this is very big issue and ICAI take strong action against these members and also give confidence to regulator in this regards and make a mechanism to control and check the limit of audit through self declaration by chartered accountants at the time after conducting audit.
Income Tax department should not allowed to upload more than 60 Tax audit report on their website for CAs with the co-ordination with ICAI to stop this in future from A Y 2015-16.Suggestion to ICAI and Income Tax Department.
These Facts really amaze me. I really doubt on the numbers, a CA issuing 2471 TARs, is some thing very astonishing.
One more thing I would like to point out is that, the Number of 60 is applicable to Assessee having Gross Receipts more than Rs. One Crore only and all the Assessee declaring income less than 8% (Section 44AD) are not counted in the Cap of 60. The Cap of 60 also does not includes Audit of 12A Trusts & Societies.
There is no clarity of the TARs number given by the Author, whether it includes 44AD Tax Audits, Trusts, etc. Since the procedure for uploading is the same and there is no means for distinguishing between them.
To all my dear Criticising Friends :
1. It is normal, in Practice we generally issue more Sec 44AD TARs then Sec 44AB TARs. So the Total number of TARs issued generally exceeds more than 45.
2. From the above point, I would like to state that 97.58% (81.13 + 16.45) have complied with the ICAI Regulations. Since the total number of Sec 44AB TARs is below 45 and other are Sec 44AD TARs & Trusts, etc. The % of compliance with ICAI is very high, it is common that every profession has black sheeps and I can openly challenge, we CAs have better compliance with Ethics. I also feel Institute should take action on the CAs found guilty.
As per Section 18(5) of The Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, accounts of the ICAI (Financials)is audited by a Chartered Accountant again. How far this is correct. Our esteemed Central Govt. should move amendment to Section 18(5) of Chartered Accountants Act, Cost Accountants Act & Company Secretaries Act respectively & also Section 12(2) of Advocates Act, so that accounts of all these professional bodies should be audited by The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India under Article 149 of Indian Constitution. This is in the interest of public at large & need of the hour.
To sum-up, all the professional bodies passed by Acts of Parliament should have their accounts audited by The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India under Article 149 of Indian Constitution. (Supreme authority for Audit under Article 148 of Indian Constitution). I hope our favourite Modi Govt. will move above amendments to bring transparency.
iT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER IF THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO COLLECTED THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE NUMBER OF PARTNERS IN THE FIRM. AS THE RESTRICTION APPLY PER PARTNER 45 (60) BUT HE CAN ALWAYS SIGN ON BEHALF OF THE FIRM. IF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF AUDITEES ARE MORE THAN THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED PER PARTNER THEN THE ACTION HAS TO BE INITIATED BY THE INSTITUTE.
DECLARATION MAY BE OBTAINED WITH THE NAME OF THE AUDITEES EVERY YEAR BY THE INSTITUTE
Now a days Greed is not only restricted to professional or professional fraternity but entire humans. It is important to note that Chartered Accountant play key role in adding revenue to the treasure of government of India. Getting CA certificate is not that much easy. It is easy to point out mistakes of others. ICAI being on the top will regulate appropriately.
Now at least audit syllabus will get reduce as their is no need of professional ethics
Now at least in the next budget,Finance Ministry should include the name of Cost Accountant in the definition of “Accountant” for the purpose of Conducting Tax Audit in order to ensure quality in tax compliance.
Data not completely reliable…. A CA may be signing above 45 TARs on behalf of partnership firm…
Our C.A.Institute is soft towards our members. Govt. must incorporate provision in IT ACT to regulate no. of audits, then only C.A.will follow rules. Most of the C.A.are not self -regulated, they are to be govt. regulated.
Very Good Info. Against name of the CA place from where they are should also be placed. I mean from Mumbai , Delhi etc. ICAI should declare the steps taken ASAP.
Hi
Looks like Chartered Accountants never intent to give quality report or quality service to the society.
The whole idea of Studying CA course is mainly to make money at any cost and even ICAI has failed in controlling its members.
Why not ICAI or ITD takes any action against these Chartered Accountants,. They are many reports that the signature of Chartered Accountant who have passed away has been used.
They just want to eat everything and humans are greedy and Members of ICAI are no exception for it.
THIS IS REALLY SHAMEFUL FOR THE WHOLE CA FRATERNITY. THE WORD “ETHICS” HAVE BECOME EXTINCT FOR CAs. I THINK ITS HIGH TIME NOW THAT CS, CMA & ADVOCATES SHALL BE INCLUDED IN ALL FINANCIAL AUDITS UNDER COMPANIES ACT AND INCOME TAX ACT ETC.
NOW WHO IS GOING TO BEAR THE HUGE REVENUE LOSSES THAT HAS OCCURED BECAUSE OF CAs. WE USED TO HEAR ABOUT POLITICIANS WHO HAVE DONE FRAUDS FOR THOUSANDS OF CRORES BUT NOW I THINK CAs ARE TOPPING THE LIST OF FRAUDS. CAs ARE ALSO TOUCHING THE THOUSAND CRORE MARK IN FRAUD.
“CUDOS” TO CAs.
There are no limits for TAR in case of 44AD, 44AE etc.
Has the CAG looked into this angle also?
(1) Tax Audit Report U/s 44AB prescribed in Income-Tax Rules, Form No.3CA, 3CB & 3CD are revised by Central Board of Direct Taxes, Deptt. of Revenue, Govt. of India. Against this action, members of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India strongly agitated throughout India under the banner of VOICE OF CAS. In this agitation, they stated that “CBDT erred in revising Tax Audit Forms in midway of the financial year 2014-15, that too without consulting ICAI & waiting for issue of GUIDANCE NOTE ON TAX AUDIT REPORT from ICAI”.
(2) Very purpose of Tax Audit U/s 44AB of Income-Tax Act & uploading the same to e-filing website of Income-Tax Deptt. is to enable the assessing authority to conclude QUALITY ASSESSMENT on utilizing SECTION WISE/COLUMN WISE WRONG CLAIMS reported therein. This is also supported by Circular bearing No.387 issued for introduction of Tax Audit on 6.7.1984 and E-Filing Project Agreement F.No.E-Filing/1/2009/DIT(S)-III Dt.25.11.2011 signed by DGIT(Systems), DIT (Systems)-III, Member (L&C) & Chairman (CBDT).
(3) The President of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India in his message published in Taxguru website on 1st November 2014 has stated that they are the PARTNERS IN NATION BUILDING. Same self appreciating statement also published in their student journal for July 2014. Herein it is also stated that they are CELEBRATING 65 YEARS OF PROFESSIONAL EXCELLENCE. .
(4) Against RTI Application filed before Directorate of Income-Tax (Systems), New Delhi, seeking TOTAL OF SECTION WISE/COLUMNS WISE WRONG CLAIMS reported in Tax Audit Report Form No.3CD uploaded to e-filing website of Income-Tax Deptt., that relates to return filed for the Asst. Year 2013-14, Deputy Director of Income-Tax (Systems)-III gave reply that NO SUCH DATA HAS BEEN CAPTURED IN THE SYSTEMS DIRECTORATE. Is it not strange that Income-Tax Deptt. could not get desired results to conclude quality assessment, in spite of guidance note on Tax Audit issued by ICAI to its members ?
(5) On date, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India reposed confidence on only Chartered Accountants for issue of 46 Plus Mandatory Certificates in Income-Tax Act. This is causing huge loss of revenue to our esteemed Central Govt. due to strict hurdle for voluntary compliance from related Non-CA Tax Professionals (Viz: Legal Practitioners, Cost & Management Accountants, Company Secretaries & Reg. Income-Tax Practitioners). In fact Non-CA Tax Professionals are totally ignored by the Ministry of Finance & hence new Non-CA Tax Professionals are not entering tax practice since 1984. In another 10 years, Non-CAs who entered tax practice in 1980’s will all eliminate & Govt. has to rely on only Chartered Accountants for seeking compliance under all Indian taxation laws. Such dependency of Govt. on one professional body is a dangerous trend & leads to monarchy in our democratic setup.
(6) In view of the above facts, it is clear that 46 Plus Mandatory Certificates from only Chartered Accountants prevailing in Income-Tax Act & Section 44AD in particular, linking the same to Section 44AB of Income-Tax Act, causing strict hurdle for voluntary compliance & assesses prefer to approach only CAs for tax compliance, resulting in unemployment of Non-CA Tax Professionals.
Its a monopoly of CAs for conducting Tax audit as per DTC govt has done a good job include CMAs in Accountant Definition to Conduct Tax audit,
Thanks,
CMA Ram
ICAI must act now with heavy hand against all those members not following ICAI code of conduct ,then only Dept and the public will believe disciplinary mechanism of ICAI.Thanks
As per my view, ICAI sack to all chartered accountant after giving a reasonable oppurtunity who have not compliance the limit as prescribed in act.
this is ridiculous and against principle, institute should take severe action (not mere suspension) against these members.