2018 (8) TMI 705 - Other - Indian Laws

Appellate authority upholds professional misconduct finding under Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. Punishment maintained.

The appellate authority upheld the decision of the Board of Discipline, finding the appellant guilty of professional misconduct under the Chartered ... Professional misconduct - Disciplinary Proceedings against the Chartered Accountant (member of ICAI) - CIT (A) has reviewed all statements recorded, documents seized and the statement of the Appellant before the Income Tax and found the Appellant involved in arranging the bogus bills through bogus concerns promoted by him and charged commission for that. - Board of Discipline held him guilty under Clause (10) of Part-I and Clause (2) of Part-IV of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 and awarded punishment of removal of name of the Appellant from Register of Members for a period of one month besides a fine of ₹ 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) Held that:- Pursuantly, we have noted that all Cheque books of the said bogus concerns were lying with the Appellant and the said bogus bills were made on the computer of the Appellant. We also find that there is admission of Appellant himself before the Income Tax Department that he arranged bogus bills for commission. The said statement remained uncontroverted till now. The learned CIT (A) upheld the addition of said commission in the hands of the Appellant. No order of Tribunal was produced before us to reverse the same but it was said that the appeal is pending. Even copy of appeal was not filed before us. It is also relevant to record here that the Appellant stated that the statement recorded by the Income Tax Department was under coercion. However, when we inquired from him that the statement was recorded on 23rd October, 2009 and for the last Nine years why he has not retracted or disputed the same, for which, no answer at all was given by the Appellant. Consequently, when the Appellant has himself admitted charging commission at every stage of proceedings, there is no scope to challenge the findings and the Order passed by the Board of Discipline. On the careful perusal and consideration of the materials on record, we do not find any ground to reduce the punishment awarded to the Appellant as well. - Decided against the appellant CA. Issues Involved:1. Adequate opportunity of hearing before the Board of Discipline.2. Reliance on evidence and statements before the Income Tax Department.3. Admission of guilt and the nature of commission received.Detailed Analysis:Adequate Opportunity of Hearing:The appellant contended that he was not given sufficient opportunity to present his case before the Board of Discipline. He argued that he was denied adjournments and adequate time to submit evidence. However, the appellate authority noted that the appellant failed to bring any new evidence or arguments during the appeal proceedings. The Board of Discipline had recorded that the appellant stated he had nothing further to submit. Consequently, this ground was dismissed as without merit.Reliance on Evidence and Statements:The appellant argued that the Board of Discipline relied on statements and documents from the Income Tax Department without allowing him to cross-examine the witnesses. He claimed his statement to the Income Tax Department was made under coercion. The appellate authority noted that the appellant had admitted to arranging bogus bills and receiving commissions in his statements to the Income Tax Department, which were not retracted or disputed for nine years. The Board of Discipline relied on the appellant's own admissions and the CIT (Appeals) order, which confirmed the addition of commission income to the appellant's income as undisclosed income. The appellate authority found no merit in the appellant's claims regarding coercion or the veracity of the documents.Admission of Guilt and Nature of Commission:The appellant admitted to charging commissions but claimed it was done as a trustee on behalf of various contractors. The appellate authority found this claim untenable given the facts and circumstances. The appellant's admission of guilt during the Board of Discipline proceedings was noted, where he accepted charging commissions but disputed the quantum. The Board of Discipline relied on the appellant's own statements and the CIT (Appeals) order, which confirmed the appellant's involvement in arranging bogus bills and charging commissions.The appellate authority concluded that the appellant was rightly held guilty of professional and other misconduct under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. The appeal was dismissed, and the punishment of removal of the appellant's name from the Register of Members for one month and a fine of Rs. 50,000 was upheld. No grounds were found to reduce the punishment, and the stay orders, if any, were vacated.