AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Markandey Katju, CL
These writ appeals have been filed against the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 13-7-1998 passed in W.P. Nos. 5925 and 5926
of 1989.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The petitioner in both the writ petitions (1st respondent in both the writ appeals herein) is a practising Chartered Accountant and was a member
of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. The petitioner alleged in his affidavit filed in support of Writ Petition No. 5925 of 1989 that he
was a partner of M/s. Shri & Co., a reputed Chartered Accountant firm which was stated in Madras in 1938. It is alleged that the said firm had
wide range of clientele belonging to both public and private sectors and also of individuals, firms, companies and trusts. It was also functioning as
Tax Consultants and Tax Representatives. The profession of Chartered Accountants is governed by the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949
(hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 3 of the Act provides that Chartered Accountants registered u/s 4 of the Act constitute a body called
the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. The Council of the said Institute constituted u/s 9 of the Act carries out the various functions
mentioned in section 15 and other provisions of the Act.
Various enactments such as the Companies Act, 1956, Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Banking Companies Regulations Act provide that only
Chartered Accountants have a specified role to play in companies and other organizations. The intention obviously is that there should be uniform
accountancy methods and high level of professionalism. Many years of hard work and knowledge is required to qualify as Member of the Institute
and once a person acquired the required qualification he is free to engage himself in the profession without any kind of restriction except for
professional misconduct as mentioned in section 22 of the Act. The Council set up by the Act has general power to enquire into the allegations of
misconduct of members of the Institute. It may be mentioned that there is compulsory audit of the books of account and other records of
companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and also of all other persons whose turnover is in excess of Rs. 20 lakhs under the
Income Tax Act. Only a Chartered Accountant can issue a certificate under these Acts. By Finance Act, 1984 a new section viz., section 44AB
was introduced in the Income Tax Act, 1961 by which certain classes of assessees such as businessmen with a turnover of more than Rs. 40 lakhs
and a person carrying on a profession with a gross receipt of Rs. 10 lakhs a year were required to get their accounts audited by a Chartered
Accountant and get a report from him.
The petitioner has challenged the notifications dated 13-1-1989 and 25-5-1987 issued by the Union of India by which restrictions have been
placed on his right to practice as a Chartered Accountant. Paragraph - 1 of the notification dated 13-1-1989 states:-
No. I -CA(7)/3/66 - In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (ii) of Part-II of the Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act,
1949, the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India hereby specifies that a member of the Institute in practice shall be deemed to
be guilty of professional misconduct if he accepts, in a financial year, more than the specified number of tax audit assignments u/s 44AB of the
Income Tax Act, 1961.
The explanation to the said notification states:-
(1) For the above purpose, the specified number of tax:-
(i) Audit assignments means.-In the case of a Chartered Accountant in practice or a proprietary firm of Chartered Accountants, 30 tax audit
assignments, in a financial year, whether in respect of corporate or non-corporate assessees.
(ii) In the case of firm of Chartered Accountants in practice, 30 tax audit assignments per partner in the firm, in a financial year, whether in respect
of corporate or non-corporate assessees.