Facts of the
Case
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against CA
Krishan Gopal Agrawal in relation to Income Tax proceedings of Shri Bhagwan
Agrawal for Assessment Year 2001–02. The assessee had been subjected to penalty
proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for alleged
concealment of income. The penalty was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income
Tax (Appeals), and the assessee’s appeal before the ITAT was dismissed by order
dated 27 April 2007.
Thereafter, the assessee filed an appeal before the
Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, which was dismissed on 17 August 2010 on the
ground that no substantial question of law arose. Subsequently, the assessee
filed a Miscellaneous Application under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act,
1961 before the ITAT, which was allowed on 28 July 2011, resulting in recall of
the earlier ITAT order and deletion of penalty.
The Income Tax Department later filed a
Miscellaneous Application contending that the assessee had suppressed the fact
of dismissal of appeal by the High Court. The ITAT, by order dated 12 July
2013, recalled its order dated 28 July 2011. Allegations were thereafter made
that the Respondent, acting as Chartered Accountant, deliberately suppressed
material facts relating to the High Court’s dismissal order, thereby misleading
the ITAT.
Issues
Involved
Whether the Respondent deliberately suppressed the
fact of dismissal of the assessee’s appeal by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court
while representing before the ITAT, and whether such conduct constituted “Other
Misconduct” under Item (2) of Part IV of the First Schedule to the Chartered
Accountants Act, 1949.
Respondent’s
Submissions
The Respondent submitted that he was not an ITAT
practitioner and had only appeared once before the ITAT on 15 July 2011 without
arguing the matter. He stated that the Miscellaneous Application was led and
argued by another senior Chartered Accountant, CA S. C. Jain, who regularly
practiced before the ITAT. The Respondent contended that he was not aware of
the outcome of earlier proceedings and had no occasion to suppress any fact
before the Tribunal.
He further submitted that the assessee acted on
legal advice available from multiple professionals and that the fact of
dismissal of appeal by the High Court was within the knowledge of the Income
Tax Department, which was itself a party to the proceedings. The Respondent
denied any deliberate concealment or intent to mislead the Tribunal.
Court /
Authority Order and Findings
The Board of Discipline examined the entire record
including ITAT order sheets, proceedings of Miscellaneous Applications, High
Court order, and submissions of the Respondent. The Board noted that the
Respondent was not representing the assessee in the earlier ITAT appeal or the
High Court proceedings and had only appeared once before the ITAT without
making submissions.
The Board further observed that the Income Tax
Department was itself a party to the proceedings before the ITAT and the High
Court, and therefore was fully aware of the dismissal of the appeal by the
Hon’ble Allahabad High Court. The Board held that non-disclosure of a fact
already within the knowledge of both parties cannot be treated as deliberate
suppression by one professional.
The Board also noted that the ITAT itself observed
that it was equally the duty of both parties to place correct and material
facts before the Tribunal. On appreciation of the facts, the Board concluded
that there was no merit in the allegation that the Respondent deliberately
suppressed material facts or misled the ITAT.
Important
Clarification
The Board clarified that for establishing “Other
Misconduct” on the ground of suppression of facts, there must be clear evidence
of deliberate concealment with intent to mislead. Where the facts are already
within the knowledge of all parties and the authority concerned, disciplinary
liability cannot be fastened on a Chartered Accountant merely on assumptions or
conjectures.
Final
Outcome
The ICAI Board of Discipline held CA Krishan
Gopal Agrawal (M. No. 072528) Not Guilty of “Other Misconduct” under Item
(2) of Part IV of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949
read with Section 22. By order dated 13 December 2022, the Board directed
closure of the case under Rule 15(2) of the Chartered Accountants
(Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct
of Cases) Rules, 2007.
Source
Link - https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1768898274_CA.KrishanGopalAgrawalM.No.072528U.P..pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment