TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (11) TMI 531
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gulations, 1988 ("the Regulations" for short). He submitted his written statement to which rejoinder was submitted by the complainant Dr. Sunila Mehta. The respondent then submitted his comments. The Council considered all these documents and prima facie was of the view that the respondent Praveen Kumar Katyal was guilty of professional misconduct besides other misconducts and decided to hold an inquiry in the matter by the Disciplinary Committee. Consequently, the Disciplinary Committee was constituted which conducted inquiry proceedings and gave its report dated 3.2.2006 holding the respondent Praveen Kumar Katyal guilty of professional misconduct falling within the meaning of Clause 11 of Part-I of First Schedule and also other misconduc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respondent to be removed from the List of Members for a period of one year. That is how this reference has been made to this Court under Section 21(5) of the Act. 2. The respondent filed counter-affidavit and challenged the veracity of the report of the Disciplinary Committee and also the decision of the Council. He also alleged the complainant Dr. Sunila Mehta to be having no locus standi to file the complaint inasmuch as she had no professional dealing with him. He also alleged the inquiry report to be vitiated making that no proper opportunity was ever granted to him to cross-examine Dr. Sunila Mehta. With regard to the allegation that he was engaged in other business activities being the Director of some companies, he stated that he wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 1.9.1997 despite that all the papers and documents were given to him in March, 1997. The other allegations against him were that being the Director he was running various companies from his office of Chartered Accountant. 5. On receipt of copy of the complaint from the Institute, the respondent submitted his written statement. In his statement before the Disciplinary Committee, the respondent admitted that M/s Dhan Kuber Mutual Benefit Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated in 1995 and he was one of its Directors. The respondent had also admitted that he was the director of other two companies namely M/s Katyal Leasing and Investment Company and Katyal Consultancy Private Limited. He admitted that all these companies are carrying on their businesses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith M/s Dhan Kuber of which he was the Director. The respondent was provided by the Disciplinary Committee copies of all the documents filed by the complainant. His written statement and representations and also the comments were duly considered by the Committee. The respondent did not lead any evidence to rebut the allegations levelled against him by the complainant Dr. Sunila Mehta. Not only that the respondent attended the proceedings of the Disciplinary Committee, but was afforded due opportunities to present his case and defend himself. 7. It is seen that the complainant was examined on 5.7.2004 and the respondent was examined on 24.8.2004. The plea that he was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant is absolutely....