The Board of Discipline of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India ( ICAI ) decided to remove the name of the of a Chartered Accountant ( CA ) who remained employed with a state government organization continuously for 8 years, despite holding a full-time Certificate of Practice ( CoP ) issued by the institute for a period of 1 month.
The Chartered Accountant ( CA ) is the respondent in this disciplinary proceeding, who worked as a Procurement Officer at “Jeevika,” a government organization in Bihar, was found to have breached Regulation 190A of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988. This breach led to a disciplinary conflict. The regulation prohibited practising CAs from pursuing any other business or occupation on a full-time basis.
The Board of Discipline considered Regulation 190A, which strictly prohibits such dual engagements for chartered accountants in practice. Regulation 190A of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988, explicitly states the restriction on chartered accountants practicing in any other business or occupation. The regulation states as follows:
“A Chartered Accountant In practice shall not engage in any business or occupation other
than the profession of accountancy, except with the permission granted in accordance with
a resolution of the Council”.
However, the board made not of the permissible categories of engagements approved by the Council under Regulation 190A, which are available in Appendix No. 9 to the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988 provides as under:
(B) “Members of the Institute in practice may engage in the following categories Of business
or occupations, after obtaining the specific and prior approval of the Council in each case:-
1. Full time or part-time employment in business concerns provided that the member and/or his relatives do not hold substantial interest In such concerns.”
The ICAI Disciplinary Board noted that the complainant submitted the evidence, including the List of Staff of ‘Jeevika,’ which identified the respondent- CA as the ‘Procurement Officer’. During the hearing, when questioned by the Board about the nature of payments received from the entity, the respondent acknowledged receiving a salary, as indicated in Form 26AS.
Additionally, the respondent- CA disclosed that they had been employed with the entity for approximately 8 years, from 2013 to 2021, with their appointment renewed seven times before resigning. Furthermore, the respondent stated that they conducted Tax Audits during this tenure.
Considering the respondent’s continuous employment with the entity for around 8 years, during which they received a salary while also holding a full-time Certificate of Practice and performing attest functions, the Board found the respondent guilty of the alleged charge.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
