I think the Income Tax Apppellate Tribunal has been unfair on the matter of manner in which CA classes being conducted and its quality.
This is from today's Times of India :
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Incorrect-advice-by-CA-firm-irks-ITAT/articleshow/42296326.cms
MUMBAI: In a recent order, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) - on coming across an "incorrect" advice given by a particular firm of chartered accountants (CAs) - has sought to lambast the entire CA fraternity for "losing its grip over income tax matters". It has also frowned on the mushrooming of coaching classes for CA students and cast aspersions on the quality of ongoing educational programmes for qualified CAs.
As the matter before the ITAT pertained to one particular instance of an erroneous advice given by a particular CA firm, the ITAT's wide-sweeping, harsh comments have sent shockwaves in professional circles.
Ironically, the ITAT has dismissed the taxpayer's plea of condoning the delay before the tribunal. The taxpayer had pleaded that the delay
was based on the incorrect advice given to him by his CA firm. He added since he had "sincerely" relied on such advice, he should not be made to suffer. The tribunal dismissed this plea and rejected the appeals filed by the taxpayer.
In this case, Vijay Meghani, the taxpayer, was employed in Mumbai as a representative of a foreign bank. He delayed filing an appeal for disputed issues relating to the fiscal years 1993-94 and 1994-95 by 2,984 days. Seeking condonation of this delay, Meghani claimed that his CA firm - Rajesh Rajeev & Associates - had advised him that as he had already filed an appeal for an earlier year on the same point and this appeal was pending before the ITAT, he need not file appeals for the subsequent two years.
He was guided that after the ITAT had given an order in the earlier pending matter, he could file rectification applications with the tax department for revision of its orders for the two financial years of 1993-94 and 1994-95. The CA firm also filed an affidavit with the ITAT in which it confirmed having given such advice.
Pointing out that time limits are prescribed under the tax laws, the ITAT said, "It is inconceivable that a CA would have advised the taxpayer to wait for the outcome of a past appeal to decide about the future course of action."
Going a step further, the ITAT raised an alarm on the mushrooming of coaching centres for CA students, which manufacture CAs though a classroom model. "Such spoon-feeding discourages independent thinking," it said. Doubts have also been raised in the order
on the efficacy of the continuing education programme (CPE) for CAs, which is conducted by the apex body - The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI).
Many CAs are of the view that the remarks made by the ITAT are wide-sweeping and presumptuous. For example, Vijay Meghani also interacted with other chartered accountants, primarily because the CA firm of Rajesh Rajeev & Associates concentrated on corporate client practice post 2006. The ITAT order states that, in "all probability", the taxpayer would have consulted other CAs also on the disputed issue. It then goes on to express an opinion on the quality standards of the profession as a whole.
Kamlesh Vikamsey, past president, ICAI, said, "Some very sweeping, excessive and harsh remarks have been made against the CA profession as a whole, which are uncalled for. The facts of an isolated case and general impressions (without any concrete material on record) should not form a basis for criticizing the entire profession on its quality, educational standards, CPE standards and disciplinary process."
Concurred Nitin Shingala, president, Bombay Chartered Accountants' Society (BCAS): "This case appears to be an aberration and the ITAT's observations cannot apply universally to the entire CA profession."
Mumbai-based chartered accountants are likely to approach the ICAI to express their dismay over this order.
CAclubindia
