The requirements of Form 3CA/Form 3CB require the auditor to give a true and fair view on the accounts of the assessee which can be given only by persons having a high degree of training and competence in accounting. This level of knowledge in accounting is possessed only by chartered accountants acquired by virtue of their tough training and stringent qualifying requirements. The syllabus prescribed for the various examinations of the ICAI is of a very high order and the same is constantly updated to be in tune with the times through the constitution of Review Committees.

Considering the fact that the reporting under the various clauses of Form No. 3CD requires a thorough knowledge of the principles of accounting and auditing and the procedures thereof with an independent professional approach with integrity, impartiality and objectivity. the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) reposed the responsibility of conducting such tax audit exclusively on the chartered accountants.

Even the Apex Court has put its seal of approval by upholding the constitutional validity of section 44AB in T.D. Venkata Rao v Union of India [1999] 237 ITR 315 (SC). The Apex Court has made the following significant observations:

‘ Chartered Accountants, by reason of their training have special aptitude in the matter of audits. It is reasonable that they, who form a class by themselves, should be required to audit the accounts of businesses whose income (sic: turnover) exceeds Rs.40 lakhs and professionals whose income (sic: gross receipts) exceeds . Rs.10 lakhs in any given. year. There is no material on record and indeed in our view, there cannot be that an income-tax practitioner has the same expertise as chartered accountants in the matter of accounts. For the same reasons the challenge under article 19 must fail, and it must be pointed out that these income-tax practitioners are still entitled to be authorised representatives of assessees.”

There are several High Court judgments as well, like Sarma (A.S.) v. Union of India [1989) 175 ITR 254 (AP): Mohan Trading Company v. Union of India [1985] 156 ITR 134 (MP); Nataraj (T.S.) v. Union of India [1985] 155 ITR 81(Kar.); Sathya Moorthy (R.) v. Union of India [1991] 189 ITR 491 (Mad.); Rajkot Engineering Association v. Union of India [1986] 162 ITR 28 (Guj.,) which have clarified that audit is the exclusive domain of Chartered Accountants. The relevant extracts of the aforesaid judgments are as follows :-

Relevant extracts of the judgments mentioned in the letter above

Approval by Apex Court for Chartered Accountants as specialists in audit

The highest Court has put its seal of approval by upholding the constitutional validity of section 44AB in T.D. Venkata Rao v Union of India j1999j 237 ITR 315 (SC). The Apex Court has made the following significant observations:

“Chartered Accountants, by reason of their training have special aptitude in the matter of audits. It is reasonable that they, who form a class by themselves, should be required to audit the accounts of businesses whose income (sic: turnover) exceeds Rs. 40 lakhs and professionals whose income (sic: gross receipts) exceeds Rs.10 lakhs in any given year. There is no material on record and indeed in our view, there cannot be that an income-tax practitioner has the same expertise as chartered accountants in the matter of accounts. For the same reasons the challenge under article 19 must fail, and it must be pointed out that these income-tax practitioners are still entitled to be authorised representatives of assessees.’

2. High Courts recognize the audit expertise of Chartered Accountants (i) Sarma (A.S.) v. Union of India [1989] 175 ITR 254 (AP)

“Income-tax practitioners and auditors cannot be considered on par with chartered accountants regarding expertise and excellence in audit. It is contended that the income-tax practitioners, advocates and chartered accountants are considered and treated alike under section 288 and, therefore, there is no logic for this differentiation. Section 288 enumerates the diverse categories of persons entitled to attend on behalf of the assessees before the hierarchy of authorities under the Act and apart from other persons income-tax practitioners, advocates and chartered accountants are mentioned. A glance at the list of persons set out in sub-section (2) of section 288 reveals that the persons who are expected to make an effective and genuine representation and having an over-view knowledge of the affairs of the assessee are authorised to represent without reference to any specialised proficiency in taxation or otherwise. It is patent that all those categories are lined up on an equal footing under section 288 for the purpose of representation of the case of the assessee and this equal eye should be confined to the purpose of representation only and it cannot be expected of advocates and income-tax practitioners with their background of education and academic attainment to give a good account of themselves in audit. Equally, chartered accountants cannot be credited with legal education. Chartered accountants constitute a distinct group and income-tax practitioners and advocates cannot be equated with them in so far as audit is concerned and as such section 44AB is not violative of article 14 of the Constitution.”

(ii)           Mohan Trading Company v. Union of India [19851 156 ITR 134 (MP)

“The chartered accountant, who do the work of audit, perform the function of an “accountant” on account of the special qualification they have for this purpose and the legal practitioners obviously do not belong to that category. It is, therefore, not a case where the legal practitioners, who are qualified to perform the duty of an “accountant”, have been restrained from doing so. As for representation of the assessee before the assessing authority, the legal practitioner as well as the “accountant” appear for the assessee, since both are included in the category of persons entitled to represent the assessee as an “authorised representative” in accordance with s. 288 of the Act. It is for the purpose of s. 288 of the Act that a legal practitioner and an “accountant” are equals and not for the purpose of compulsory audit of the assessee’s account, for which the “accountant” alone is qualified. Admittedly, there is no discrimination made between a legal practitioner and an “accountant” for the purpose of appearance as an “authorised representative” of the assessee in accordance with s. 288 of the Act. If a person clubbed with others in s. 288 possesses some further qualification enabling him to perform a function in addition to appearance as an “authorised representative” of the assessee, no discrimination can result from the disability of others for want of qualification to perform the addition function outside the ambit of s. 288 of the Act. The mere possibility of an “accountant” being preferred to a legal practitioner for the purpose of representing the assessee before the assessing authority is no ground to hold that there is any discrimination between them as equals under s. 288 of the Act.”

(iii)        Nataraf (T.S.) v. Union of India [1985] 155 ITR 81(Kar.)

“Under the Chartered Accountants Act and the Chartered Accountants Regulations of 1964 framed thereunder, a person, to be enrolled as a chartered accountant, must possess the special qualifications prescribed by the regulations which require him to undergo an arduous and intensive training and then pass the various tough examinations that qualify him for enrolment as a chartered accountant. In that process, one of the qualifications acquired will be the special skill or knowledge in the audit of accounts which is both a science and an art. Any and every one cannot claim the qualifications and status of a chartered accountant. We can with certainty hold that a CA has the necessary qualification, skill and expertise to audit the accounts required to be filed under the Act. While this is the position of chartered accountants, we cannot hazard to say the same so far as the ITPs are concerned. The class of ITPs cannot compare themselves with the class of CAs. We are here concerned with the superior and special qualifications possessed and recognised by law and not with the individual and special attainments, if any, attained by an individual and not recognised by law. As pointed out by Cardozo J. in Stewart Dry Goods Co. v. Lewis (294 Us 550) quoted with approval by our Supreme Court in Kodar v. State of Kerala [1974] 34 STC 73, the “law builds on the probables only” and cannot possibly comprehend all conceivable situations at any rate in one measure, in any event at one time. What emerges from this discussion is that the ITPs who belong to a separate class cannot compare themselves with the class of chartered accountants that have special qualifications and expertise to do the job of audit more efficiently.”

(iv)    Sathya Moorthy (R.) v. Union of India [19911189 ITR 491 (Mad.)

The High Court cited with approval the observations of Andhra Pradesh High Court in A.S. Sarina v. Union of India [1999] 175 ITR 254 and the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mohan Trading Company v. Union of India [1985] 156 ITR 134 in the following words:

Therefore, with respect, adopting the reasoning in these decisions, we find absolutely no difficulty in upholding the validity of section 44AB. ‘

(v)    Rajkot Engineering Association v. Union of India 11986j 162 ITR 28 (Guj.)

“It is, therefore, clear that unless a person has adequate academic and practical training, proficiency and expertise in relation to what is known as auditing, it would be difficult for him to perform his role and adopt measures so as to reach the well recognized standards in the profession. It is difficult for us to agree with the Learned Advocate General for the petitioners that the general role which is envisaged for the authorized representatives which a non-chartered accountant can assume and perform would be sufficient for reaching and maintaining the standards required for an auditor and more so for a tax auditor. The norms and distinctions which a person has to satisfy and achieve in the course of the academic and practical training for being qualified as a chartered accountant go a long way in conferment of proficiency and expertise which a lay person cannot achieve by merely having practical knowledge of the principles of accountancy     

“It, therefore, cannot be said that Parliament has, by selecting chartered accountant from amongst various representatives to act as tax auditors, given a preferential treatment to them vis-a-vis the other non-chartered accountants’ segment of authorized representatives. These two classes cannot be said to be similarly situate so as to make the classification and intelligible or for that matter as suspect classification without having reasonable nexus with the object of the Act.”

Extract from the reply of ICAI dated 29.01.2014 to CBDT in respect of Information Provided by Tax Advocate Shri B.S.K Rao and Shri Srikrishna to CBDT

To View Full text of the letter please Read the following post :-

Act of Non CAs to Approach CAs to get Tax Audit report signed for Audit not conducted by them is unethical – ICAI

Author Bio

More Under Income Tax

Posted Under

Category : Income Tax (25333)
Type : Articles (14823) Featured (4127)
Tags : CA Sandeep Kanoi (252) ICAI (2191) section 44AB (127) Tax Audit (258) Tax Audit Report (143) tax auditor (86)

0 responses to “Tax Audit is exclusive domain of Chartered Accountants”

  1. B.S.K.RAO says:

    BASIC CONCEPT OF AUTHORISING “ACCOUNTANT” TO CONDUCT “TAX LAW AUDIT” BOTH IN INCOME-TAX ACT AND DIRECT TAXES CODE AMOUNTS TO CONTRAVENTION LIABLE FOR ACTION UNDER ARTICLE 129 READ WITH ARTICLE 142(2) OF INDIAN CONSTITUION IN VIEW OF LATEST SC VERDICT IN THE CASE OF BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA VS A.K.BALAJI READ WITH HC VERDICT A.K.BALAJI VS GOVT. OF INDIA. INCOME-TAX ACT/DIRECT TAXES CODE BEING “LAW”, ADVOCATES ALONE ARE ENTITLED TO PRACTICE, PLEAD AND ACT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICERS OF TAX DEPTT. ON DATE “PRACTICE OF ALL INDIAN TAXATION LAW” SQUARELY FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF NON-LITIGIOUS MATTER AND PRACTICE OF THE SAME BY NON-ADVOCATES HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO REVIEW AS PER ABOVE MENTIONED INTERIM ORDER OF SUPREME COURT. THEREFORE I SUGGEST MY ADVOCATE FRIENDS TO ISSUE SECTION 80 CPC NOTICE TO MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVT. OF INDIA, IN THE ABOVE MATTER.

    I HERE BELOW FURNISH NAME & ADDRESS OF PERSON IN MINISTRY OF FINANCE TO WHOM SECTION 80 CPC NOTICE HAS TO BE SERVED ABOUT PRACTICE OF INCOME-TAX LAW BY ACCOUNTANTS

    SMT.RASHMITA JHA,
    DIRECTOR (V&L),
    CBDT, ROOM NO.253A,
    NORTH BLOCK,
    NEW DELHI-110001

    Tel No.: 011-23092786
    E-Mail : umasingh@nic.in

    I HOPE THAT MY ADVOCATE FRIENDS WILL MAKE USE OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION TO SERVE SECTION 80 CPC NOTICE TO MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVT. OF INDIA IN THE ABOVE MATTER

  2. B.S.K.RAO says:

    BELOW IS THE REALITY PREVAILING ON DATE:-

    World over functions of Accounting are classified depending on the area of operation, application & usage. They are as under..

    (1) Cost Accounts=> Manufacturing/Processing Activity..
    (2) Financial Accounts = > Trading Activity..
    (3) Management Accounts => Management Level/Decision Making..

    Note:-Management Accounts is nothing but application of Ratio Analysis and Cash Flow Statement on Cost and Financial Accounts.

    By The Cost and Works Accountants (Amendment) Act, 2011, name has been changed to “The Institute of Cost Accountants of India” and the members got the power to work in the area of Management Accounts also and can re-designate themselves as ACMA/FCMA. Now, it is funny that both institutes passed by an Act of Parliament called by similar short name of “ICAI”. Of course syllabus is almost similar in all the three institutes called by different name of ICSI, ICWAI and ICAI.

    In view of the above amendment, Cost Accountants now possess wide power of working in the area of Cost Accounts, Financial Accounts & Management Accounts. And hence, Institute of Cost Accountants of India should be called full accounting body in India. Whereas, Chartered Accountants are restricted to work in the area of Financial Accounts only. This being the case, I do not understand why only Chartered Accountants are authorized to conduct Tax Audit U/s 44AB of Income-Tax Act and enjoy monopoly of authority, causing strict hurdle for voluntary compliance.

  3. B.S.K.RAO says:

    1. The word “Chartered” of ICAI (Financials) denotes some thing of a dominion state of affair as against Sovereign Independent Republic of India. Therefore, our Central Govt. should think about retaining ICAI (Financials) under Indian Constitution.

    2. Deptt. of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India should consider the concern of ICAI (Financials) about expanding the definition of accountant in DTC-2013. If not ICAI (Financials) not only act wild/Cruel, they do not allow DTC-2013 to come out smoothly. Therefore, it is better to accede to the wishes of ICAI (Financials) & introduce Tax Practitioners Bill prevailing in other country’s throughout the world to widen the genuine tax base of assesses in India.

  4. Taxxguru says:

    Act of Non Legal Practitioners to practice Law is not only unethical but unlawful.
    According to the order of Hon’ble Madras High Court:

    THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA MAY TAKE NECESSARY STEPS IN RELATION TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW BY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS AND MANAGEMENT FIRMS, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE ACT: MADRAS HIGH COURT

    A.K. Balaji Vs. Government of India

    (2012) 35 KLR 290 (Mad.)
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
    DATED : 21.02.2012
    C O R A M

    THE HON BLE Mr. M.Y. EQBAL, CHIEF JUSTICE
    and
    THE HON BLE Mr. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
    W.P. No.5614 of 2010
    and
    M.P. Nos.1, 3 to 5 of 2010
    Head Note:-
    Advocates Act, 1961 – There is no bar for foreign lawyers or law firms to visit India for temporary periods on a “fly in and fly out” basis to advise their clients on foreign law and diverse international legal issues. They are however not permitted to practice Indian law, either in relation to litigation or advisory matters, unless they qualify and enroll as advocates and fulfill the requirements of the Act and Rules. The activities performed by BPOs and LPOs do not constitute practice of law and hence do not conflict with the Act. The Bar Council of India may take necessary steps in relation to the practice of law by chartered accountants and management firms, which is contrary to the Act.
    A.K. Balaji
    .. Petitioner
    versus
    1. The Government of India, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Law Department, 4th Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 110 001.
    2. The Government of India, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home Department, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi 110 001.
    3. The Government of India, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Finance Department, North Block, Lok Nayak Bhavan, New Delhi.

    WE RESPECT HON’BLE COURTS BUT MEMBERS OF ICAI NOT FALLOW JUDGEMENT OF HONB’LE HIGH COURT & SUPREME COURT IN ABOVE MENTIONED CASE.

  5. K.MUKAMBIKA says:

    Interpretation of Accounts not tough job ie, any commerce graduate can do the job of audit of accounts. Whereas interpretation of law is tough job, therefore Tax Advocates can only conduct Income-Tax Law Audit U/s 44AB of Income-Tax Act wherein section wise wrong claims are required to be reported. Ie, any body can become an Auditor, but it is not so in case of Advocates

  6. B.S.K.RAO says:

    DEAR ALL RESPECTED CA FRIENDS,

    Please argue academically on making study of Section 288(2) of Income-Tax Act read with Rule 12A of Income-Tax Rules and Section 145 read with 14 Accounting Standards of CBDT, instead of saying that Non-CAs posting comments here with jelous (Here, it is presumed that all five class of persons who are authorised to prepare return under Rule 12A among total eight class of persons authorised represent the assessee U/s 288(2), possess the knowledge of Section 145 read with 14 Accounting Standards of CBDT, required for Income-Tax Practice). Because certain qualification has been fixed in Income-Tax Act for these five class of persons. Accounting Standard framed by ICAI & IFRS not required for Income-Tax Practice.

    I hope that my fellow CAs posting comments in this blog consider my genuine request to enable DTC-2013 to come out smoothly with good shape, both in the interest of all Tax Professionals & Govt. revenue, keeping in mind that status of CAs are not disturbed in draft DTC-2013.

  7. K.MUKAMBIKA says:

    Dear All Friends,

    Audit means “verification”, depending on the purpose they are classified as Energy Audit, Environment Audit, Product Audit, Process Audit, Legal Audit in USA & Tax Audit in Indian Income-Tax Act etc. Here, person conducting audit should be specialized in that subject. Hence the word “Audit” is not the exclusive domain of Chartered Accountants & audit under Income-Tax law is the exclusive domain of Tax Advocates, because here tax auditor has to report section wise wrong claims on interpreting Income-Tax Law, Bonus Act, PF & ESI Act, Central Excise & Service Tax Law and Commercial Tax Law of respective states in India etc.

  8. Dr Arun Draviam says:

    What is the degree of fairness required in certifying audited balance sheet and income statement? There is a saying ‘Everything is fair in love and war’!

  9. Harish Bhagat says:

    Recognition given by the MOF to conduct Tax Audit does not mean that it is your exclusive domain & the persons having other qualifications can’t do it. Let us be very clear. In a country like India, where democracy exists, even an institute having smaller number of members have the same privilege. Convincing govt. officials & ministers going out of the way should not be seen that it is your cup of tea only. All three qualifications CA/CMA/CS are somehow similar merely two or three papers here & there. In my opinion CAs are for Statutory Financial Audit / CMAs are for Statutory Cost Audit / CS are for Statutory Secretarial Audit, Rest of the areas should remain opened for all three.

  10. MANDEEP SINGH says:

    My Chartered accountant friends
    I am posting here quality of work done by CA’s in their audits u/s 44ab. If you are talking of such quality of work then I strongly in favour of there is no difference between ASIA & AUSTRALIA continentals.
    Both continentals are equal according to its geographical locations.

    781 TOTAL CASES IN WHICH ADDITION MORE THAN 2 LAC
    772 AUDITED U/S 44AB BY CA
    9 NON AUDITED CASE

    241 TOTAL CASES IN WHICH ADDITION MORE THAN 2 LAC
    229 AUDITED U/S 44AB BY CA
    12 NON AUDITED CASE

    200 TOTAL CASES IN WHICH ADDITION MORE THAN 2 LAC
    200 AUDITED U/S 44AB BY CA
    0 NON AUDITED CASE

    185 TOTAL CASES IN WHICH ADDITION MORE THAN 2 LAC
    185 AUDITED U/S 44AB BY CA
    0 NON AUDITED CASE

    181 TOTAL CASES IN WHICH ADDITION MORE THAN 2 LAC
    181 AUDITED U/S 44AB BY CA
    0 NON AUDITED CASE

    88 TOTAL CASES IN WHICH ADDITION MORE THAN 2 LAC
    87 AUDITED U/S 44AB BY CA
    1 NON AUDITED CASE

    159 TOTAL CASES IN WHICH ADDITION MORE THAN 2 LAC
    159 AUDITED U/S 44AB BY CA
    0 NON AUDITED CASE

    155 TOTAL CASES IN WHICH ADDITION MORE THAN 2 LAC
    155 AUDITED U/S 44AB BY CA
    0 NON AUDITED CASE

    148 TOTAL CASES IN WHICH ADDITION MORE THAN 2 LAC
    148 AUDITED U/S 44AB BY CA
    0 NON AUDITED CASE

    127 TOTAL CASES IN WHICH ADDITION MORE THAN 2 LAC
    127 AUDITED U/S 44AB BY CA
    0 NON AUDITED CASE

    121 TOTAL CASES IN WHICH ADDITION MORE THAN 2 LAC
    121 AUDITED U/S 44AB BY CA
    0 NON AUDITED CASE

    120 TOTAL CASES IN WHICH ADDITION MORE THAN 2 LAC
    120 AUDITED U/S 44AB BY CA
    0 NON AUDITED CASE

    TOTAL U/S 44AB NON AUDITED
    2506 2484 22

    sir if CA’s talking of such kind quality work then their is no need such kinds quality for widen our country revenue. This information from various INCOME TAX DEPARTMENTS FROM INDIA.I have same kind information near about 2000 offices all over india. which is not possible to publish here.

  11. Amit Singhal says:

    CMA Syllabus is more tough compare to CA. Now Ministry is going on the right way. CMA and CA both are authorized for Audit,special audit and certifications under the various law like, Custom, Excise, Service Tax and VAT. In the DTC new form should be include for the Stock valuation of finished Goods and WIP. Special Stock Audit provision should be include in the DTC.

  12. MANDEEP SINGH says:

    MANDEEP SINGH Says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    April 17, 2014 At 11:25 PM
    CA Prasenjit Paul ji
    For your kind knowledge, I am mentioning syllabus of B.COM & CA. Pl decide why B.COM decree holder is not competent to audit of business accounts u/s 44ab. Just minimize pass percent not produce quality & it creates only frustration. B.COM LLB with 10 years experience are more competent for audit. they have expertise in law & accountancy ( reason CA & B.COM SYLLABUS is same for audit accounts u/s 44ab. Pl leave ego & come forward for pro country revenue.

    B.COM SYLLABUS

    FIRST YEAR
    1) Financial accounting
    2) Business Economics
    3) Business Statistics and
    Operations Research
    SECOND YEAR
    1) Corporate Accounting
    2) Banking and Financial Services
    3) Business and Corporate Law
    4) Principles of Management
    5) Indian Economy : Problems and
    Policies
    THIRD YEAR
    1) Business Taxation
    2) Practical Auditing
    3) Entrepreneurial Development
    4) Cost and Management Accounting
    5) Marketing Management

    CA SYLLABUS

    IPCC – Intermediate (Integrated Professional Competence) Course

    Group I
    Paper 1: Accounting (100 marks)
    Paper 2: Business Laws, Ethics and Communication (100 marks)
    Paper 3: Cost Accounting and Financial Management (100 marks)
    Paper 4: Taxation (100 marks)
    Group II
    Paper 5: Advanced Accounting (100 marks)
    Paper 6: Auditing and Assurance (100 marks)
    Paper 7: Information Technology and Strategic Management(100 marks)

    ________________________________________
    FINAL

    Group I
    Paper 1: Financial Reporting (100 Marks)
    Paper 2: Strategic Financial Management (100 Marks)
    Paper 3: Advanced Auditing and Professional Ethics (100 Marks)
    Paper 4: Corporate and Allied Laws (100 Marks)
    Group II
    Paper 5: Advanced Management Accounting (100 Marks)
    Paper 6: Information Systems Control and Audit (100 Marks)
    Paper 7: Direct Tax Laws (100 Marks)
    Paper 8: Indirect Tax Laws (100 Marks)

  13. B.S.K.RAO says:

    ICAI PUBLICATIONS IN THEIR JOURNALS & NEWS PAPERS AND ITS PROFESSIONAL ETHICS IS THE MAIN IMPACT FOR THE CHANGES REFLECTED IN DTC-2013

  14. CMA B. S NANDA says:

    in this article those cases refereed by the reader is only for legal practitioner and not for cma or cs. there are no difference in the syllabus of both ca and cma …i think cma syllabus is more tough than ca. and cma are more knowledgeable than ca . so how ca can ask only for them self. the three professional bodies are the same powers. how we treat ca are best ….ca are best but cma and cs are equally best ….so if income tax department gives tax audit to cma and cs it would beneficial for revenue and the quality of work is improved

  15. K.MUKAMBIKA says:

    Indian legislature has vested the power of only Practice of Financial Accounts (Accounts Relating to Trading Activity only) on Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and Practice of Cost Accounts & Management Accounts vested on Institute of Cost Accounts of India. As Management Accounts is nothing but preparation of Cash Flow Statement & Ratio Analysis on Cost & Financial Accounts, only Institute of Cost Accounts of India should be called as full accounting body in India. Hence, Cost & Management Accountants only entitled to Audit of Ltd Companies in Companies Act. But, I do not understand, Why CMA’s are not included for Audit of Ltd Companies on deleting CA’s from Companies Act. As per the authority granted by Indian legislature, CA’s are only entitled to audit Trading Accounts in Commercial Tax Laws of India only.

  16. MANDEEP SINGH says:

    Now question of tax audit u/s 44AB for Non- corporate assessees by a B.COM LLB perfectly. Audit u/s 44ab related to just knowledge of book keeping.
    syllabus of CA’s near about same with B.COM then it is wrong to say only CA’s should be authorize to conduct audit.
    1) as per concern about training with experience of 10 years income tax( B.COM LLB) more competent then new CA.

    2) AS PER CONCERN FORM 3CD & 3CB related to interpretation of tax laws. According that only TAX ADVOCATE should be authorize to file form 3CD & 3CB.

    3) As per information provided by Income tax department all over india. MOSTLY CASES ARE AUDITED CASES IN WHICH DEPARTMENT MADE MORE THAN 2 LAC ADDITIONS conducted by CA’s u/s 44ab.

    4) AT LAST ICAI SHOULD BE SERIOUS ABOUT COUNTRY REVENUE IRRESPECTIVE OF ONLY FOR THEIR MEMBERS INTEREST.

  17. MANDEEP SINGH says:

    A.K. Balaji Vs. Government of India

    (2012) 35 KLR 290 (Mad.)
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
    DATED : 21.02.2012
    C O R A M

    THE HON BLE Mr. M.Y. EQBAL, CHIEF JUSTICE
    and
    THE HON BLE Mr. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
    W.P. No.5614 of 2010
    and
    M.P. Nos.1, 3 to 5 of 2010
    Head Note:-
    Advocates Act, 1961 – There is no bar for foreign lawyers or law firms to visit India for temporary periods on a “fly in and fly out” basis to advise their clients on foreign law and diverse international legal issues. They are however not permitted to practice Indian law, either in relation to litigation or advisory matters, unless they qualify and enroll as advocates and fulfill the requirements of the Act and Rules. The activities performed by BPOs and LPOs do not constitute practice of law and hence do not conflict with the Act. The Bar Council of India may take necessary steps in relation to the practice of law by chartered accountants and management firms, which is contrary to the Act.
    A.K. Balaji
    .. Petitioner
    versus
    1. The Government of India, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Law Department, 4th Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 110 001.
    2. The Government of India, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home Department, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi 110 001.
    3. The Government of India, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Finance Department, North Block, Lok Nayak Bhavan, New Delhi.

    WE RESPECT HON’BLE COURTS BUT MEMBERS OF ICAI NOT FALLOW JUDGEMENT OF HONB’LE HIGH COURT & SUPREME COURT IN ABOVE MENTIONED CASE.

  18. CMA.T.N.Panja says:

    Proper valuation of Inventory and Assets are the two main resources in Tax Audit.Valuation is the most important part in Tax Audit, If valuation is not proper then Govt, will loose millions of rupees due to improper calculation of Tax , Cost Accountants being valuation experts are the most suitable professionals to do Tax Audit because valuation of inventories through Cost Accounting Standards will reflect the exact valuation and TAX Calculation will also be appropriate if Cost Accountants will do TAX AUDITS.

  19. Venugopalrao says:

    The law has given powers to only CA’s that they only can do Tax audit and the Syllabus of ICAI was related to Tax Audit and accounting matters no issue in this, But other professional bodies also having the same syllabus and also have the competency and ability to deliver the same what CA’s do , The standing Committee has suggested to include other Professionals in the definition of Accountant, Which means this view may have given by standing committee after careful evaluation.then why the monopoly of only one Professional body to be maintained?

    whether ICAI is afraid of competition?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *