Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Judicial and Legislative Perspectives on Mens Rea in Income Tax Prosecutions :Clause 490 of the Inco...
    Presumptions in Tax Offence Prosecutions : Clause 489 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278D ...
    Karta and Member Liability for Tax Offences : Clause 488 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Directors' and Officers' Liability for Corporate Tax Offences : Clause 487 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Balancing Deterrence and Fairness : Clause 486 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278AA of Income-...
    Enhanced Penalties for Repeat Tax Offenders specified under Indian Tax Law: Clause 485 of the Income...
    Penal Provision for abetment in relation to the making and delivering of false returns - Clause 484 ...
    Penal Provision for Offences Relating to Falsification of Books in Indian Tax Law : Clause 483 of th...
    Prosecution for False Verification under Indian Tax Statutes : Clause 482 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to Produce Accounts and Documents : Clause 481 of the Income Tax Bill, ...
    Penal Provision for Failure to Furnish Return in Search Cases : Clause 480 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 ...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to File Income Tax Returns : Clause 479 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Criminal Liability for Tax Evasion in India : Clause 478 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Criminal Liability for TCS Defaults : Clause 477 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 vs. Section 276BB of Incom...
    Criminal Liability for TDS Defaults : Clause 476 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 276B of th...
    Evolution of Statutory Offences Against Tax Recovery in India : Clause 475 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Penal Provisions for Non-Compliance during Tax Inspections : Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025...
    Penal Consequences for Non-Compliance with Tax Authority Orders : Clause 473 of the Income Tax Bill,...
    Redefining the Bar of Limitation for Tax Penalties : Clause 472 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sec...
    Natural Justice and Administrative Oversight in Tax Penalties : Clause 471 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of culpable mental state shifts evidentiary burden to accused to disprove intent beyond reasonable doubt.
    Clause 490 mandates that once the prosecution establishes the actus reus, the court shall presume the existence of a culpable mental state-broadly defined to include intention, motive, knowledge, belief and reason to believe-and permits the accused to rebut that presumption only by proving absence of such mental state beyond reasonable doubt.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption regarding assets and documents found in searches shifts evidentiary burden, now including virtual digital assets.
    Clause 489 creates a rebuttable presumption that assets (including virtual digital assets) and books or documents found in a person's possession during an authorised search, or received via requisition, are presumed to belong to that person and that documents' contents are true when tendered in prosecution, applied "so far as may be" by reference to the Bill's presumption provision and extending to other persons identified by the Bill's connected-person provision.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of karta guilt shifts evidential burden, requiring demonstration of due diligence to avoid prosecution.
    Clause 488 places primary criminal responsibility on the karta of a Hindu Undivided Family by deeming the karta guilty of an offence by the HUF, subject to statutory defences of lack of knowledge or proof of having exercised all due diligence. It further deems any member guilty where the offence is proved to have been committed with that member's consent or connivance or is attributable to their neglect, creating independent member liability while preserving the karta's available exculpatory defences.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Corporate officer liability: deeming provision shifts initial burden to accused, with due diligence defence for tax offences.
    Where a company commits an income-tax offence, the company and every person who was in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business at the time are statutorily deemed guilty and liable to prosecution, subject to a defence that the individual lacked knowledge or exercised all due diligence to prevent the offence; separate liability arises where the offence occurred with the consent, connivance, or neglect of officers, companies are punishable by fine while individuals may face full penal consequences, and definitions explicitly include firms and associations of persons.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable cause defence limits criminal liability for certain tax compliance failures, protecting bona fide taxpayers from prosecution.
    Clause 486 creates a non obstante statutory reasonable cause defence prohibiting punishment for failures under the specified sections of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 when the accused proves reasonable cause. The provision places the burden of proof on the accused, preserves judicial fact specific assessment of reasonable cause, and operates to limit prosecutions for bona fide or uncontrollable lapses while directing enforcement attention to willful or egregious defaults.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Enhanced penalties for repeat tax offences impose mandatory imprisonment and fine upon subsequent convictions under specified tax provisions.
    A prior judicial conviction under any specified income tax offence triggers enhanced punishment: a person again convicted under any of those listed offences is subject to mandatory rigorous imprisonment and a mandatory fine, regardless of whether the subsequent conviction is for the same or a different listed offence; judicial discretion governs the precise sentence within the prescribed range, and the provision applies only after a prior conviction, not mere charge or prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Abetment of false returns: broadened criminal exposure for facilitators with mandatory imprisonment and fines for culpable conduct.
    Clause 484 criminalises abetment or inducement in making or delivering false tax-related statements, requiring that the abettor know the falsity or not believe the statement to be true. Punishment is tiered by the quantum sought to be evaded, with mandatory minimum imprisonment terms and fines, while procedural details and definitions such as "induce" are not specified, raising interpretive and evidentiary challenges. The clause mirrors prior law's structure but broad wording could implicate advisors and intermediaries absent judicial or legislative clarification.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Falsification of accounting records: criminal liability for wilful false entries intended to enable another person to evade tax.
    Clause 483 makes it an offence to wilfully make or cause false entries in books of account or other documents with intent to enable another person to evade tax, interest, or penalty; it requires proof of wilful conduct and intent but not proof that the beneficiary actually evaded liability, covers physical and electronic records relevant to tax proceedings, and prescribes rigorous imprisonment and a fine.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    False verification offences: criminal liability requires proved knowledge or recklessness, with graded imprisonment and mandatory fines.
    The provision criminalises making false statements in any statutory verification or delivering false accounts where the person knows or believes the statement to be false or does not believe it to be true. Prosecution must prove this mental element beyond reasonable doubt. A graded penalty applies according to the financial impact of the falsity: substantial evasion attracts a higher term of rigorous imprisonment while other cases attract a lower term, and a fine is mandatorily imposed in addition to imprisonment.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to produce accounts triggers criminal liability including imprisonment and mandatory fine under the new tax provision.
    Clause 481 establishes a penal offence for willful failure to produce accounts and documents called for by a notice under section 268(1), or willful non compliance with a direction under section 268(5), punishable by rigorous imprisonment for up to one year and liability to fine, with criminal prosecution requiring proof of willfulness beyond reasonable doubt and adherence to procedural safeguards; the clause mirrors prior law while leaving the fine quantum unspecified and raising interpretative issues regarding the threshold for willfulness and potential overlap with other provisions.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful failure to furnish return in search cases creates criminal liability, exposing taxpayers to imprisonment and fines.
    Clause 480 penalises a person who, following a search and pursuant to a notice under section 294(1)(a), wilfully fails to furnish a return of income within the prescribed time. The provision requires proof of deliberate non compliance, treats the offence as criminal, and prescribes imprisonment along with a court levied fine, while prosecutions remain subject to ordinary criminal procedure and due process safeguards.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to file returns attracts graded criminal penalties including imprisonment and fine; an extended cure period limits prosecutions.
    Clause 479 criminalizes the willful failure to furnish returns of income, applying to statutory filing obligations and notice-triggered duties, and establishes a graded criminal penalty regime tied to the tax that would have been evaded. It preserves a mens rea requirement, mandates imprisonment and fine across tiers, and provides exemptions including a one-year cure period to avoid prosecution and a de minimis exception for non-corporate taxpayers, while raising interpretative issues on the definition of wilfulness and calculation of evaded tax.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful tax evasion criminalisation: updated offence framework tightens penalties and preserves additional monetary sanctions for deliberate under-reporting.
    Clause 478 establishes an offence of wilful attempt to evade tax, penalty, or interest, including under-reporting, distinguishing evasion of liability from evasion of payment. It prescribes graded sentences with discretionary fines and makes offenders liable to any other penalties under the Act. The provision's inclusive definition-false entries, false statements, wilful omissions, and other enabling circumstances-broadens prosecutorial scope while retaining the requirement to prove mens rea and preserving procedural safeguards for prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to remit tax collected at source: criminal liability retained with a filing linked safe harbour to encourage timely compliance.
    Clause 477 criminalizes failure to remit tax collected at source, adopting a strict liability approach that imposes custodial sentence and fine while offering a statutory safe harbour where TCS is deposited on or before the time prescribed for filing the TCS statement, thereby aligning penal consequences and procedural exemption with the existing framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Criminal liability for failure to remit TDS expands enforcement and broadens managerial responsibility, with strict penalties.
    Clause 476 criminalizes failure to deposit taxes deducted or collected at source under Chapter XIX-B, extending liability to those who "pay or ensure payment" and prescribing rigorous imprisonment and fine. A proviso bars prosecution if the tax is credited to the Central Government on or before the time prescribed for filing the relevant TDS statement, while cross references to notes and tables expand the catalogue of covered transactions and may complicate interpretation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Fraudulent asset dissipation criminalized: intent-based offence bars transfers aimed at defeating prescribed tax recovery proceedings.
    Clause 475 penalizes the fraudulent removal, concealment, transfer, or delivery of any property or interest with the intent to prevent it from being taken in execution of a prescribed recovery certificate, requiring proof of deceitful intent and applying to tangible and intangible interests; it retains the punitive framework of rigorous imprisonment and fine while replacing an explicit Second Schedule reference with a flexible "as prescribed" linkage to recovery procedures.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to provide inspection facilities criminalises obstruction during tax inspections, attracting imprisonment and fine under the new bill.
    Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, makes it an offence to fail to afford an authorised officer the necessary facility to inspect books of account or other documents under section 247(1)(b)(ii), punishable with rigorous imprisonment for up to two years and a fine. The clause largely mirrors Section 275B of the 1961 Act, raises interpretive issues about the definition of "necessary facility" and mens rea, and creates potential overlaps with other penal provisions, while preserving continuity in enforcement policy.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Contravention of tax authority orders may attract imprisonment and fine under the new income tax framework.
    Clause 473 establishes an offence for contravening orders under section 247(1)(viii) or (4), penalising such contraventions with rigorous imprisonment up to the statutory maximum and a fine. The clause focuses on breaches concerning custody, retention, or handling of assets or records during investigative processes. It does not specify mens rea or procedural attributes such as cognizability or bailability, so application and defences will be shaped by judicial interpretation and the Bill's broader procedural framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation period for tax penalties: quarter based uniform timeline aligns penalty orders with assessment and appellate outcomes.
    Clause 472 standardises the limitation for imposing tax penalties by prescribing a uniform six month period measured from the end of the quarter tied to the completion of proceedings, appellate or revisional orders, or issuance of a penalty notice; it permits revision of penalty orders to reflect subsequent assessment modifications, mandates a reasonable opportunity to be heard before adverse penalty action, and excludes rehearing and judicial stay periods from limitation computation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax penalties: hearing rights and hierarchical approval govern imposition and administrative oversight under new bill.
    Clause 471 requires that no penalty be imposed without the assessee being heard or given a reasonable opportunity, mandates prior Joint Commissioner approval for penalties exceeding specified officer thresholds, and requires that penalty orders passed by authorities other than the Assessing Officer be sent to the Assessing Officer. It mirrors core safeguards of the existing law but omits scheme enabling provisions for faceless, technology driven procedures and transitional rules, creating potential uncertainties over thresholds, definition of reasonable opportunity, procedural delays, and modernization.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of section 515 "Appearance by authorised representative." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      17 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 515 Appearance by authorised representative

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 515 (Old Version) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 sets out who may appear as an authorised representative for an assessee before income-tax authorities and the Appellate Tribunal, lists categories of permissible representatives and exclusions, and prescribes disqualification grounds and appeal procedures. It matters because it governs representation rights in tax proceedings - affecting taxpayers, tax professionals, banks and institutions. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 515 is part of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, captioned "Appearance by authorised representative." The clause governs attendance before "any income-tax authority or the Appellate Tribunal for any proceeding under this Bill." The provision defines "authorised representative" and "accountant" for the section, specifies persons excluded from representing an assessee, prescribes consequences for certain misconduct or convictions, and provides procedural safeguards for orders of disqualification. Definitions: the text supplies an exhaustive (enumerated) list of persons who may be authorised representatives, sets out exclusions to the definition of "accountant," and defines "relative" for the purpose of the section. Any other contextual background (policy rationale, legislative history) is Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Coverage: Clause 515 permits an assessee "entitled or required to attend" before tax authorities or the Appellate Tribunal to attend through an authorised representative. Attendance in person remains mandatory where required for oath/affirmation u/s 246. Ingredients/elements: (1) entitlement/requirement to attend; (2) written authorisation by the assessee to the representative; (3) representative falling within enumerated categories; and (4) absence of disqualification under the listed grounds. The section extends to proceedings under the Bill before income-tax authorities and the Appellate Tribunal.

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent and interpretive principles indicated by the text: the clause prescribes a controlled, enumerated list of permissible representatives, suggesting an intent to balance access to representation with safeguards against conflicts of interest and misconduct. The use of express exclusions (e.g., relatives, officers, persons with certain financial interests) indicates a policy aim to preserve impartiality. The provision anticipates delegated rulemaking by referencing "as prescribed" for educational qualifications and for persons who may have business relationships of a prescribed nature. No explicit legislative purpose statement or explanatory notes are included. Not stated in the document: legislative history, purpose beyond textual indications, or debates.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Carve-outs: subsection (2) carves out cases where personal attendance is required for examination on oath or affirmation u/s 246. The definition of "accountant" contains multiple exceptions (who the accountant does not include for representation), including company-specific auditor-eligibility constraints and exclusions where the person is the assessee himself or related persons, officers/employees, partners, persons having securities/indebtedness/guarantees below specified monetary thresholds (one lakh rupees), persons with prescribed business relationships, and persons convicted of fraud within ten years. Disqualification grounds in sub-section (4) include dismissal from Government service, conviction or imposition of specified penalties, insolvency, and conviction for fraud - with temporal limits specified for some categories.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A taxpayer may authorise a chartered accountant with a valid certificate of practice to appear before an income-tax authority, provided the chartered accountant is not the assessee, not an officer or employee of the assessee, not a relative, and not otherwise disqualified under subsection (4). (This example is a direct application of the text.)
      • Example 2: An officer of a scheduled bank that maintains the assessee's current account may, if authorised in writing by the assessee, appear as authorised representative under clause 515(3)(a)(ii), unless disqualified under sub-section (4). (Drawn directly from the enumerated categories.)
      • Example 3: A person who holds a security in the assessee but whose relative's holding does not exceed one lakh rupees may still fall within permissible representation unless otherwise excluded by other sub-clauses. (Example reflects the monetary threshold in sub-clause (G)(I).)

      Interplay

      Interaction with other provisions: clause 515 refers to section 246 (examination on oath/affirmation) to exclude personal attendance cases. It cross-references provisions in the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 for the definition of "accountant" and to the Companies Act, 2013 for auditor eligibility. It also cites historical statutes (Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and Income-tax Act, 1961) for transitional categories. The clause contemplates appeals to "the Board" against disqualification orders and refers to section numbers in other Acts/sections for specified exceptions. No mention is made of rules, forms, or procedural modalities beyond the ability to appeal within one month; detail on the mechanism of written authorisation is Not stated in the document.

      Differences between Document 1 Section 515 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Document 2 Clause 515 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) and Practical Impact

      • Structure and wording of definitions: The enacted Section 515 (Doc 1) uses the phrase "For the purposes of this section,--" introducing sub-section (3) with enumerated definitions including (a) "authorised representative" and (b) "accountant"; the Bill version (Doc 2) uses "In this section,--" with largely similar enumerated items.
        • Practical impact: largely stylistic; no material difference unless specific wording differs (noted below).
      • Clause (3)(a)(viii)/(viii) - transitional/legacy category: Doc 1 sub-clause (viii) refers to "any other person who was an authorised representative in accordance with the provisions of section 288(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961);" Doc 2 sub-clause (viii) refers to "any other person who, immediately before the coming into force of the said Act, was an income-tax practitioner as per section 61(2)(iv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), and was actually practising as such;".
        • Practical impact: Doc 1 ties the legacy category to the previous Income-tax Act, 1961, via a specific section; Doc 2 ties it to the 1922 Act's income-tax practitioner definition and an additional "actually practising" requirement. This change may broaden or shift the universe of legacy practitioners recognised; precise practical effect depends on which historical practitioners meet the cited prior-section criteria. The difference affects transitional eligibility of persons who represented taxpayers before earlier regimes.
      • Prescriptive language for educational qualification sub-clause: Doc 1 sub-clause (vi) states "any person, who has acquired such educational qualifications, as may be prescribed;" (words identical to Doc 2 which has "as prescribed" - Doc 2: "as prescribed;" Doc 1: "as may be prescribed;").
        • Practical impact: Doc 1's "may be prescribed" arguably emphasises delegated-rulemaking; Doc 2's shorter "as prescribed" is substantively the same in practice. No material operational difference apparent.
      • Definition of "accountant" exceptions - organisational terminology: Doc 1 in sub-clause (b)(ii)(B) uses "for an assessee, being a registered non-profit organisation, any person referred to in section 355(h)(i) or (ii) or (iii) or (iv);" whereas Doc 2 uses "for an assessee, being a trust or institution, any person referred to in section 355(h)(i) or (ii) or (iii) or (iv);". Practical impact: Doc 1 replaces "trust or institution" with "registered non-profit organisation". This narrows or clarifies the class by requiring registration as a non-profit organisation - effect is to limit who is excluded from being an accountant for representation in respect of such assessees.
        • Practical effect: companies or entities that are trusts/institutions but not registered non-profit organisations may be treated differently under the enacted text.
      • Cross-references to penalties/sections in disqualification (sub-section (4)(b)): Doc 1 excludes persons on whom a penalty has been imposed under this Act, except penalties u/s 271(1)(ii) or 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or section 465(1)(d) of this Act. Doc 2 instead excepts a penalty imposed u/s 275(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or section 465(1)(d).
        • Practical impact: the enacted provision substitutes different cross-references to prior Act penalty sections (271/272A referencing 1961 Act) compared to the Bill's 275 reference. This changes which historical penalty types are carved out from disqualification-affecting whether prior penal sanctions continue to block representation. Practically, the change alters eligibility where the prior penalty falls under different section numbers.
      • Sub-section (5)(b) phrasing on non-legal/accountant misconduct: Doc 1: sub-section (5)(b) states that a non-legal practitioner or non-accountant "who is found guilty of misconduct in any income-tax proceedings by the prescribed income-tax authority, he may be directed by such authority that he shall henceforth be disqualified..." Doc 2: similar but omits "prescribed" before "income-tax authority" and uses slightly different punctuation.
        • Practical impact: Doc 1's insertion of "prescribed" suggests a specified authority will be designated by rules; this could narrow or clarify which authority may issue such disqualification directions.
      • Definition of "relative": Doc 1 articulates the phrase "any lineal ascendant (maternal or paternal) or descendant" in (d) and (e); Doc 2 uses "any lineal ascendant or descendant" without parenthetical clarification.
        • Practical impact: Doc 1 clarifies maternal/paternal; substantive application unchanged but explicitness increased.

      Practical impact summary

      • Transitional categories and legacy practitioners: changes to the historic cross-references (1922 Act vs 1961 Act sections) alter precisely which pre-existing practitioners retain authorised-representative status; this can affect availability of representation for certain categories of taxpayers immediately after enactment.
      • Scope of excluded "accountant" relationships: replacing "trust or institution" with "registered non-profit organisation" narrows an exception and may restrict or clarify who cannot represent certain non-profit assessees.
      • Prescribed authority and rulemaking signals: insertion of "may be prescribed" and "prescribed income-tax authority" suggests delegated instruments will play a role in operationalising eligibility and disqualification, increasing the importance of subordinate legislation.
      • Cross-reference shifts to penalty sections change which historical sanctions impact representation rights; practitioners affected by prior penalties should check the specific cited sections to determine continuing eligibility.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: authorised representatives must ensure they are not within the exclusion categories (relatives, officers/employees, persons with disqualifying financial interests or convictions). Taxpayers must provide written authorisation. Persons with prior convictions, insolvency, or dismissal from government service should verify whether the temporal disqualification applies.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: the text requires written authorisation by the assessee; parties should retain copies of written authorisations and any documentary evidence of eligibility (e.g., certificate of practice for chartered accountants). Where appeals to the Board are available against disqualification orders, parties should retain notice and order documents to meet the one-month appeal window.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 515 permits representation by an explicitly enumerated set of persons for proceedings before income-tax authorities and the Appellate Tribunal, subject to specified exclusions and disqualification grounds.
      • Personal attendance remains mandatory where examination on oath/affirmation is required u/s 246.
      • The definition of "accountant" ties representation rights to chartered accountants holding valid certificates of practice, with multiple exclusions to prevent conflicts of interest.
      • Disqualifications include dismissal from Government service, certain convictions or penalties, insolvency, and fraud convictions with specified temporal consequences; procedural safeguards include opportunity to be heard and a one-month appeal to the Board.
      • Several aspects are to be prescribed, signalling a role for subordinate rules (e.g., educational qualifications, prescribed income-tax authority for disqualification of non-professionals).
      • Transitional references to prior statutes create categories for legacy practitioners; exact scope depends on interpretation of the cited prior provisions.
      • Specific operational details (effective date, form of written authorisation, particulars of prescriptions) are Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 515 Appearance by authorised representative

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax