Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2011 (11) TMI 531

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was right in holding the respondent guilty of 'other misconduct' as well u/s 22 read with Section 21 of the Act. Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the misconduct, we are in agreement with the punishment awarded to the respondent by the Council. Accordingly, the reference made by the Council for removal of respondent Praveen Kumar Katyal from the List of Members for a period of one year is hereby approved - CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT REFERENCE NO. 1 OF 2009 - - - Dated:- 4-11-2011 - M.L. MEHTA, J. Rakesh Aggarwal for the Petitioner. JUDGMENT 1. This reference has been made by Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India ("the Council" for short). There were certain complaints made to the petitioner agai .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Both the sides submitted their representations on the report of the Disciplinary Committee. The Council considered the report of the Disciplinary Committee and also written representations of both sides and decided to accept the report of the Disciplinary Committee and accordingly held respondent Praveen Kumar Katyal guilty on two counts viz. (i) professional misconduct falling within the meaning of Clause 11 of Part-I of First Schedule of the Act, 1949; and (ii) other misconducts under Section 22 read with Section 21 of the Act. In respect of first count, the Council afforded opportunity of hearing to the respondent under Section 21(4) of the Act. The respondent neither appeared nor submitted his representation. On consideration of the m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ns on which the inquiry came to be instituted against the respondent were on the basis of complaint made by Dr. Sunila Mehta whose mother was getting her income tax returns filed through the respondent as his client. The complainant also desired that her first income tax return to be filed through him. The respondent advised her to invest her money with him at the return of 27% per annum as against 14% per annum which the complainant was getting on the investments already made by her. Consequently, she gave him cheques of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 5 lakh. The respondent also gave her two post-dated cheques dated 29.5.1997 and 18.6.1997. Both these cheques were signed by him as Director of M/s Dhan Kuber Mutual Benefit Limited. On presentation thes .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat he was taking decisions on behalf of M/s Katyal Consultancy and was actively involved in this company by attending its Board meetings. In his counter-affidavit also, the respondent admitted himself to be the director of these companies, though he had denied to be having any role in those companies. From the admissions, as made by the respondent before the Committee as noted above, there does not remain any doubt with regard to the fact that the respondent had incorporated these companies and was not only their Director simplicitor, but was actively involved in the decision making affairs of these companies. This was absolutely in violation of Clause 11 of Schedule I of the Regulations and the Committee has rightly found him guilty on th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... We have gone through the record and it is seen that the Disciplinary Committee as also the Council followed due procedure as prescribed in Section 21 of the Act. We could not see any reason to find the report of the Inquiry of Disciplinary Committee to be vitiated on any ground. 9. The respondent being a CA was bound by the professional conduct. The respondent in his position as CA of the mother of the complainant for many years, lured the complainant to invest in his company at return of 27% per annum as against 14% per annum which the complainant was getting from her previous investments. In such circumstances, anyone was likely to be lured with such an offer. The respondent by such representations made to the complainant to invest Rs .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates