Do role of CA CS CMA as authorised representative going to end as per Taxpayers Charter?
Under the provisions of section 288 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 an assessee/taxpayer may be represented by an authorised representative before an Income Tax Authority or ITAT.
Sub section (2) provides for persons who can be appointed as authorised representatives as above.
Among others, chartered accountants holding a certificate of practice has also been authorised to be appointed as an authorised representative apart from other professionals i.e. an advocate, qualified Company Secretary of Cost Accountant.
However, the list of persons that can be appointed as authorised representatives is long and include a relative, employee, banker etc.
As per New taxpayers Charter issued today by the Finance Ministry, its has been stated that the Department shall allow every taxpayer to choose an authorised representative of his choice.
Does it mean that an amendment to section 288 is in the anvil?
However, we all know that even if a taxpayer is allowed to appoint any person of his choice, there are certain electronic services which the authorised representative must be capable of understanding which requires specialised knowledge.
No need to mention that professionals, particularly Chartered Accountants by virture of their extensive training and in depth knowledge of accounts and taxation laws are most suited for assisting taxpayers.
In view of the upcoming Faceless Assessment and in view of that as per CBDT order from 13.08.2020 most of the assessement order to be passed by the National e-Assessment Centre, it appears that despite any proposed amendment if any, only persons with required skills (i.e. professionals mentioned in section 288) can be appointed as authorised representatives practically and appointing any person as representative will be limited to offline representations only.
- Taxes on sales comprising in turnover to be excluded for estimating net profit
- Capital contribution deposited in assessee’s bank not partnership firm – Addition 69A upheld
- Bail granted to a CA accused in a GST evasion of more than 40 crores
- Every provision invoked casts a different onus, quoting wrong section prejudice the assessee
- Liability under MV Act can’t be decided on the grounds of sympathy alone – Supreme Court
