G CHANDRASEKHARA REDDI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is a Chartered Accountant & has been practising as an auditor from 1923. He is a fellow member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants from 22-8-1950 (sic). He has been appearing on behalf of assessees before the Income-tax authorities in connection with assessment proceedings under the Act. Under Section 61(1), Income-tax Act, he was found guilty of misconduct as an auditor in connection with income-tax proceedings before the Income-tax Officer, Kurnool. Thereupon, the Central Govt. declared him not to be a fit & proper person to remain enrolled on the Register of Accountants & in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 14, Auditor's Certificate Rules, 1932, the Govt. removed his name temporarily for a period of one year from the said Register, by a notification dated 24-6-1949. On 8-71949, the Commissioner of Income-tax issued a notice to the petitioner why action should not be taken against him under the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 61 of the Act & he should not be disqualified to represent an assessee. The petitioner did not appear before the Commissioner in pursuance of the notice & on 21-7-1949, the Commissioner of Income-tax passed an order under Section 61 (3) directing the petitioner shall "henceforward be disqualified to represent an assessee under Sub-section (1) of Section 61 of the Act."

(2.) Proviso (b) to Section 61 (3) of the Act gives a right of appeal to a person against whom a direction is made under that Sub-section to the Central Board of Revenue. The petitioner, however, did not prefer any such appeal. On 6-71950, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India notified that the Council of the Institute was pleased to restore the petitioner to the Register of Members with effect from 24-6-1950. Thereupon, the petitioner addressed a letter to the Commissioner of Income-tax informing him of the restoration and requesting that he may be permitted to represent assessees under Section 61 of the income-tax Act. The Commissioner replied on 14-9-1950 regretting his inability to interfere with his predecessor's order, dated 21-7-1949. The petitioner went up to the Central Board of Revenue in appeal & the Board on 1-11-1950 communicated their decision that the Board saw no reason to interfere with an order which not having been appealed against had become absolute. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash this order of the Central Board. Section 61 (3) runs thus :

(3.) The first question, & in fact the only question, which has impressed us as of some substance raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is whether an order under Section 61 (3), in terms thereof, namely, an order that a particular person shall be henceforth disqualified to represent an assessee under Subsection (1), assuming no appeal in time has been filed under proviso (b), has the result of operating as an order permanently disqualifying that person from representing an assessee under Sub-section (1). The Commissioner evidently & the Central Board of Revenue certainly, appeared to have taken this view of the provision. The Central Board clearly & unambiguously says that the original order of the Commissioner not having been appealed against has become absolute.