- Advocates alone are entitled to practice law and appear before revenue authorities based on recent court rulings. - The constitution bench of the Supreme Court ruled that chartered accountants and company secretaries cannot represent parties in appeals before the National Tax Tribunal as they are not qualified to handle legal matters. - Only advocates licensed under the Advocates Act are accountable for professional negligence when practicing law, not chartered accountants or other professionals. Therefore, only advocates should be allowed to appear before income tax authorities on behalf of assessees.

1. Before Directorate of Income-Tax (Systems), ARA Centre, E-2,
Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110055
“Accountant” as defined under Explanation to Section 288 of Income-Tax Act should not be allowed to
appear before Income-Tax Authorities U/s 288(2)(iv) of Income-Tax Act, which is also in the interest of
Govt. revenue
(1) Even ignoring latest Court Verdict/Opinion/BCI Directions (See Attachment) about practice of
law by only enrolled Advocates, Accountant in no case be allowed to appear before Income-Tax
Authorities on the following grounds. Therefore, appearance clause for Accountant U/s 288(2)(iv) of
Income-Tax Act required to be deleted from the statute book of Income-Tax Act :-
(a) As Accountant is authorized to conduct Tax Audit for Revenue U/s 44AB of Income-Tax Act,
he/she should not be allowed to appear & act again for the same interested assesse (Conflict of
Interest), If allowed there is no meaning for independence of Auditor conducting tax audit for
revenue. This is not allowed even before court of law as per the latest precedents on the issue.
(b) Income-Tax Deptt. may disqualify only Income-Tax Practitioner for professional negligence
U/s 288(5)(b) of Income-Tax Act, but can not take any action on Accountant for professional
negligence. At the most, Income-Tax Deptt. may write to his/her professional body to seek action
for professional misconduct U/s 288(5)(a) of Income-Tax Act. As Accountant is not issued any
license to practice law, his/her professional body restrained to take any action for professional
misconduct against the directions of Income-Tax Deptt.
(c) Power of attorney (Vakalatnama) to practice law can only be given to Advocates. Practice of
law in the Prerogative Power of Advocates. As appearance clause meant for Accountant Section
288(2)(iv) of Income-Tax Act induces Accountant to commit offence punishable U/s 45 of
Advocates Act, such clause no longer required in the statute book of Income-Tax Act.
.
(d) If such appearance clause Section 288(2)(iv) for Accountant still retained in the statute book of
Income-Tax Act, situation may arise that order of assessing authorities in Income-Tax Deptt.
passed against the representation of Accountant become in-fructuous, bad in law, null & void, as
it amounts to passing of the order without giving an opportunity of being heard to the assesse.
Further, such orders can not be enforced by the Deptt. to recover revenue demands raised.
(e) Accountant neither licensed to practice law to enable his/her professional body to take action
for professional misconduct against the directions of Income-Tax Deptt. U/s 288(5)(a) nor the
Income-Tax Deptt. could disqualify him/her for professional negligence. This incurable virus in
the statute book of Income-Tax Act, require deletion of appearance clause for Accountant Section
288(2)(iv) of Income-Tax Act..
.
(2) To sum-up only Legal Practitioners & Income-Tax Practitioners are accountable to Income-Tax
Deptt. on date for professional negligence. As Legal Practitioners are licensed to practice all Indian laws
under Advocates Act & Income-Tax Practitioners are specially licensed to practice Income-Tax Act, only
these two class should be treated as Tax Professionals & allowed to appear before Income-Tax Authorities
on preparation & filing of Income-Tax return on behalf of assesses. Therefore, Accountant who is treated
as Tax Professional in the e-filing portal of Income-Tax Deptt. should also be deleted.
B.S.K.RAO, B.Com, LL.B, MICA,
Auditor & Tax Advocate, BDKRAO, Beside SBI,
Tilak Nagar, Shimoga-577201(Karnataka State)
MO: 0-9035089036 E-Mail : raoshimoga@gmail.com

2. Advocates alone are entitled to Practice, Plead and Act before the
Revenue Authorities
(1) Indian legislature provided special class of persons called Advocates in Advocates Act,
1961 to practice all Indian laws. Therefore, appearance clause not required in any Indian taxation
statute. Bar Council of India Vs A.K.Balaji [SLP(Civil)No(s)17150-17154/2012] Dt.4.7.2012
(SC) & A.K.Balaji Vs Govt. of India (2012) 35 KLR 290 21.02.2012 (Madras HC) it was clearly
held by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Madras High Court that Advocates alone are entitled to
practice the Profession of Law both in litigious and non-litigious matters, nullifying the effect of
Section 33 of Advocates Act. This also confirms to Section 29 of Advocates Act. In the interim
order Dt.4.7.2012, apex court upheld the view of Madras HC that Indian Advocates alone entitled
to practice law both in litigious & non-litigious matter & directed BCI to take action for illegal
practice of law by Non-Advocates in India and also reserved the decision on the issue of foreign
lawyers giving advice on laws of their country in India. The verdict of Supreme Court is declared
law of land, binding on all throughout the territory of India under Article 141 of Indian
Constitution and contravention liable for action under Article 129 read with Article 142(2) of
Indian Constitution.
(2) The constitution bench of Supreme Court of India in National Tax Tribunal case of Madras
Bar Association Vs Union of India bearing No.150 of 2006 Dt.25.09.2014, it was ultimately held
that Chartered Accountants & Company Secretaries to represent a party to an appeal before
NTT, unconstitutional and unsustainable in law. In the instant case of Apex Court, it was also
held that "In our understanding, Chartered Accountants & Company Secretaries would at the
best be specialists in understanding & explaining issues pertaining to accounts". Further,
Chartered Accountants conducting Tax Audit for Revenue can not appear & act again for the
same assesse even in proceedings before Revenue Authorities (Due to Conflict of Interest). If
explanations from Tax Auditor required, they may be called upon by issuing summons under
CPC/Evidence Act only. Because, all the procedures laid down in Civil Procedure Code followed
in the course of proceedings before revenue authorities requiring only Advocates to appear on
behalf of assesses.
(3) Professional misconduct in the course of appearance for Pleading & Acting (Practice of
Law) before the Revenue Authorities purely covered under Advocates Act read with Bar Council of
India Rules in India. I.e, only Bar Council in India issued license to enrolled Advocates (Legal
Practitioners) to practice law in India U/s 29 of Advocates Act & take action for professional
negligence in the course of Pleading & Acting. As CA, CMA & CS are not issued license to
practice law, their professional body can not take action on members against the directions issued
by Revenue Authorities for professional misconduct. Ultimately, it is clear that Revenue Deptt. can
not catch hold Chartered Accountants (CA), Cost & Management Accountants (CMA) & Company
Secretaries (CS) for professional negligence in the course of “Practice of Tax Law”.
Other than Advocates can not practice law in India any more - See
Attachment for Court Verdict/Opinion/BCI Directions
B.S.K.RAO, B.Com, LL.B, MICA,
Auditor & Tax Advocate,
BDKRAO, Beside SBI,
Tilak Nagar, Shimoga-577201
Karnataka State
MO : 0-9035089036
E-Mail : raoshimoga@gmail.com

3. A.K. Balaji Vs. Government of India
(2012) 35 KLR 290 (Mad.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.02.2012
HEAD NOTE:-
Advocates Act, 1961 - There is no bar for foreign lawyers or law firms to visit India
for temporary periods on a "fly in and fly out" basis to advise their clients on
foreign law and diverse international legal issues. They are however not permitted
to practice Indian law, either in relation to litigation or advisory matters, unless
they qualify and enroll as advocates and fulfill the requirements of the Act and
Rules. The activities performed by BPOs and LPOs do not constitute practice of
law and hence do not conflict with the Act. The Bar Council of India may take
necessary steps in relation to the practice of law by chartered accountants and
management firms, which is contrary to the Act.
Bar Council of India Vs A.K.Balaji
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.L.P. (Civil) No(s).17150-17154/2012
DATED : 04.07.2012
HEADNOTE:-
In the meanwhile, it is clarified that Reserve Bank of India shall not grant any permission to the
foreign law firms to open liaison offices in India under Section 29 of the Foreign Exchange
Regulation Act, 1973. It is also clarified that the expression "to practice the profession
of law" under Section 29 of the Advocates Act, 1961 covers the persons practicing litigious
matters as well as non-litigious matters other than contemplated in para 63(ii) of the impugned
order and, therefore, to practice in non-litigious matters in India the foreign law firms, by S.L.P.
(Civil) No(s).17150-17154/2012 whatever name called or described, shall be bound to follow
theprovisionscontainedintheAdvocates Act,1961.

4. Madras Bar Association Vs Union of India
IN THE CONSTITUTION BENCH OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
National Tax Tribunal Case No.150 of 2006
DATED : 25.09.2014
HEAD NOTE:-
Keeping in mind the fact , that in terms of Section 15 of the NTT Act , the NTT
would hear appeals from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Custom ,
Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunals (CESTAT) only on ‘’Substantial
Questions of Law‘’, it is difficult for us to appreciate the propriety of representation
, on behalf of a party to an appeal , through either Chartered Accountants or
Company Secretaries , before NTT. The determination at the hands of NTT is shorn
of factual disputes. It has to decide only “Substantial Question of Law”. In our
understanding, Chartered Accountants and Company Secretaries would at the best
be specialists in understanding and explaining issues pertaining to accounts.
These issues would, fall purely within the realm of facts . We find it difficult to
accept the prayer made by the Company Secretaries to allow them to represent a
party to an appeal brfore the NTT . Even insofar as the Chartered Accountants are
concerned , we are constrained to hold that allowing them to appear on behalf of a
party before the NTT , would be unacceptable in law . We accordingly reject the
claim of Company Secretaries , to represent a party before the NTT . Accordingly
the prayer made by Company Secretaries in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 621 of 2007 is
hereby declined. While recording the above conclusion, we simultaneously hold
Section 13 (1) , insofar as it allows Chartered Accountants to represent a party to
an appeal before the NTT, unconstitutional and unsustainable in law .
Opinion of Supreme Court of New Jersey, USA
(Advocates can practice both law & public accounts)
HEAD NOTE:-
The court must have had some kind of vision of the professional world converging
in the future, for as early as 1964, it set rather interesting ground rules into place
for the cross-employment restrictions of Legal and CPA professionals. In Opinion
23 (January 9, 1964), the court was asked: “May a member of the Bar of New Jersey
engage in the practice of law in this State simultaneously with the practice of
public accounting?” In response, the court’s opinion states:
“… we find that the dual practices of law and accounting … by lawyers would not violate the
Cannons of Professional Ethics. Nor does it appear to us that any other rules of our Supreme
Court would be violated by such dual practices….”

5. -- N.J.L.J. ---
(March -, 2013)
Issued by UPLC March 12, 2013
COMMITTEE ON THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW
Appointed by the Supreme Court of New Jersey
OPINION 50
A Nonlawyer Who Holds a Power of Attorney
May Not Engage in the Practice of Law
The Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law received a complaint
alleging that a nonlawyer attempted to represent a grievant in an attorney discipline
matter. The nonlawyer argued that his conduct was permitted because the grievant had
executed a power of attorney authorizing him to act as the grievant’s agent. The
Committee hereby issues this Opinion to clarify that a nonlawyer holding a power of
attorney is not authorized to act as a lawyer licensed in the State of New Jersey. A power
of attorney does not permit a nonlawyer to provide legal services or advice, or represent
the principal in any judicial or quasi-judicial forum. A nonlawyer who acts in this
manner engages in the unauthorized practice of law.
“A power of attorney is a written instrument by which an individual known as the
principal authorizes another individual . . . known as the attorney-in-fact to perform
specified acts on behalf of the principal as the principal’s agent.” N.J.S.A. 46:2B-8.2a.
An “attorney-in-fact” is different from an “attorney-at-law”; an “attorney-in-fact” is not a
lawyer but, rather, a person who merely has authorization to perform certain acts on
behalf of a principal.

6. 2
A power of attorney cannot authorize an agent to perform acts that would be
considered the practice of law.1
Only the New Jersey Supreme Court has the power to
regulate the practice of law and to decide who is authorized to practice law. N.J. Const.
(1947) Art. VI, sec. 2, par. 3; In re Opinion No. 26 of the Committee on the Unauthorized
Practice of Law, 139 N.J. 323, 326 (1995) (the Court’s “power over the practice of law is
complete”).
Admission to practice law in New Jersey is a “privilege burdened with
conditions.” In re Application of Matthews, 94 N.J. 59, 75 (1983). Lawyers seeking a
license to practice law in New Jersey must have “good moral character, a capacity for
fidelity to the interests of clients, and for fairness and candor in dealings with the courts.”
In re Pennica, 36 N.J. 401, 434 (1962).
The layman must have confidence that he has employed an attorney who
will protect his interests. Further, society must be guaranteed that the
applicant will not thwart the administration of justice. These exigencies
arise because the technical nature of law provides the unscrupulous
attorney with a frequent vehicle to defraud a client. Further, the lawyer
can obstruct the judicial process in numerous ways, e.g., by
recommending perjury, misrepresenting case holdings, or attempting to
bribe judges or jurors.
[Matthews, supra, 94 N.J. at 77 (quoting In
re Eimers, 358 So.2d 7, 9 (Fla. 1978)).]
1
Powers of attorney often include provisions empowering the agent to “pursue
claims and litigation.” This provision permits the agent to act on behalf of the principal
as the client in a lawsuit. An attorney-in-fact (the holder of a power of attorney) may
make decisions concerning litigation for the principal, such as deciding to settle a case,
but a nonlawyer attorney-in-fact may not act as lawyer to implement those decisions. See
3 C.J.S. Agency, Paragraph 217, page 499 (2008). Nor may an agent appear on behalf of
a principal in court as a pro se party; only the real party in interest – the principal, not a
nonlawyer agent -- is permitted to appear in court pro se. R. 1:21-1(a).

7. 3
“The protection of the public and the assurance of the proper, orderly, and
efficient administration of justice in New Jersey are ensured in our state through the
requirement that only attorneys authorized to practice law in New Jersey may engage in
legal activities.” In re Jackman, 165 N.J. 580, 585 (2000). See Rule 1:21-1(a)
(requirements to practice law in New Jersey). Licensed lawyers must comply with the
Rules of Professional Conduct and are subject to discipline for ethical violations. Rule
1:20-1(a). Licensed lawyers must participate in mandatory continuing legal education.
Rule 1:42-1.
Providing legal advice and representing parties in court or in quasi-judicial
forums such as attorney discipline proceedings or administrative agency hearings is the
practice of law. Stack v. P.G. Garage, Inc., 7 N.J. 118, 120-21 (1951); Slimm v. Yates,
236 N.J. Super. 558, 561 (Ch. Div. 1989); Tumulty v. Rosenblum, 134 N.J.L. 514, 517-18
(Sup. Ct. 1946); Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law Opinion 21, 100
N.J.L.J. 1118 (1977). “The practice of law in New Jersey is not limited to litigation. . . .
One is engaged in the practice of law whenever legal knowledge, training, skill, and
ability are required.” In re Jackman, supra, 165 N.J. at 586.
The Committee considered whether it is in the public interest to permit
nonlawyers who hold powers of attorney to provide legal services or represent parties in
court or a quasi-judicial forum. Permitting nonlawyers who hold a power of attorney to
practice law would expose members of the public to persons who are not bound by the
Rules of Professional Conduct and who do not have any training in law. It would
interfere with the orderly administration of justice and judges’ expectations that
representatives appearing in court will act ethically. It would abrogate New Jersey’s

8. 4
licensing and admission requirements. The Committee finds that it is not in the public
interest to permit the practice of law by nonlawyers who have been appointed agent of a
principal pursuant to a power of attorney. Such conduct is the unauthorized practice of
law.
This decision of the Committee is consistent with the findings of courts in New
Jersey and other jurisdictions. In Kasharian v. Wilentz, 93 N.J. Super. 479 (App. Div.
1967), the court rejected an attempt by an administrator ad prosequendum who sought to
institute a wrongful death action. “[N]ominal representatives or even active fiduciaries of
the persons in beneficial interest, not themselves lawyers, should not be permitted to
conduct legal proceedings in court involving the rights or liabilities of such persons
without representation by attorneys duly qualified to practice law.” Id. at 482.
The Ohio Supreme Court recently found that a person holding a power of attorney
is not authorized to file papers in court on behalf of the principal. The Ohio Court quoted
the findings of its Board on Unauthorized Practice of Law:
A durable power of attorney, naming a non-attorney as one’s agent and
attorney-in-fact, does not permit that person to prepare and pursue legal
filings and proceedings as an attorney-at-law. Since 1402, the law has
recognized the distinction between an attorney-in-fact and an attorney-at
law, and only attorneys-at-law have been permitted to practice in the
courts.
[Ohio State Bar Ass’n v. Jackim,
901 N.E.2d 792, 794 (Ohio 2009).]
See also In re Estate of Friedman, 482 N.Y.S.2d 686, 687 (Surr. Ct. NY 1984) (principal
“cannot use a power of attorney as a device to license a layman to act as her attorney in a
court of record. To sanction this course would effectively circumvent the stringent
licensing requirements of attorneys by conferring upon lay persons the same right to

9. 5
represent others by the use of powers of attorney”); Ross v. Chakrabarti, 5 A.3d 135, 141
(Ct. Special App. Maryland 2010) (power of attorney did not give agent right to provide
legal advice or appear in court on behalf of principal; to confer such power would be to
give a nonlawyer “the right to practice law in this State without meeting the educational,
examination, and ethical standards established by the General Assembly and the Court of
Appeals”); In re Conservatorship of Riebel, 625 N.W.2d 480, 482 (Minn. 2001) (a power
of attorney does not authorize a nonlawyer to sign pleadings and appear for principal in
court proceedings; “the attorney-in-fact may make decisions concerning litigation for the
principal, but a nonlawyer attorney-in-fact is not authorized to act as an attorney to
implement those decisions”); Mosher v. Hiner, 154 P.2d 372, 374 (Ariz. 1944)
(prohibiting attorney-in-fact from filing case in court on behalf of principal; “if an
attorney-in-fact could appear in cases in our courts there would be no need for a College
of Law at our University”); Risbeck v. Bon, 885 S.W.2d 749, 750 (Ct. App. Missouri
1994) (while parties may represent themselves in court, an agent or attorney-in-fact who
is not a licensed attorney may not represent another person in court); State v. Milliman,
802 N.W.2d 776, 780 (Ct. Appeals Minn. 2011) (“a principal of an agent cannot, by
executing a power of attorney, authorize the agent to practice law if the agent is not an
attorney-at-law”); Christiansen v. Melinda, 857 P.2d 345 (Alaska 1993) (nonlawyer
holding a power of attorney cannot bring suit on behalf of another person).
In sum, a nonlawyer holding a power of attorney is not authorized to act as a
lawyer licensed in the State of New Jersey, cannot provide legal services or advice, and
cannot represent the principal in any judicial or quasi-judicial forum. A nonlawyer who
acts in this manner engages in the unauthorized practice of law.

10. '6il8- ffif*sr r{ffiryw
(siatut0ry Body GonstittltecJ
Ty. *r{T. qT*r?
'-.ris*-: l'c{ il
,':r ft. SHARI1^,A
MA S f d, L.L.B." LL.t*., rl'1Brt
SE trefcr!,
t;;iiltil:i A.i..lNDtABAtl.itlEwDtllltj
i:-,ir t:;r ri : rcffi fg,l bfi rcr::unc if o ii n cii;.i. c.r ii.;
ii'i ;, i: $it ti rl;'.^.,w L)atr r)o Li f"icI I 0{in (li at. orrtr
I
l'el.
Fax
{$1}01 1.49?2$0cil
($1 i 01 1-49;1;t liO1 1
li
under ttre Advocates Act, 1961)
21 qTSriJ rl;:fr,{J. 3Tfidl'f,Yrm4 qiilll
;T$ ffl;,-i'l - 110 C)0?
21, Rouse Averrue fnstitufioncl Areo
New Delhi - 110 002
t).,(,t: t'); , 291 ,,:j{) r;r, i(hirrrcril)
Sr.:lllctrtl)('t' [ 1.. :.lo tir,
l. Lj:i('t't'I,"1Il ), (ll'11)"1"
{,-'r.'rtl t'lt I lloirlll I)it'ttt:f 'l'i.t.r':t.ls
Nut'tir liiot'li.
li",', l)r'lirt- I l ()()o l.
Itt'gi.sl.r'it t'
i nc:r: rt'rt:'l'it x rirlrcrllit l^:c'l't'i'llrtnit].
III li: IVi.it i;lr:rlt'.
Sn rttlrni;1r (.,t tt rr 1tlclx.
llirrrg;i Iirr('- tih( ) ooc).
Sir (s )
'l'5i. l),rtr (;grrrtlii 1,i irrililr is i.l stelttrtor. l:ritl,, un(lcl tittt ..dvocrtttcrs ;c:l. t96r
r*prc.q(:pLirr;:, irlil)roxirrrntelv L7 rnilliorr lnrvvc:r..'i t:f'llr* {:oLlntr| anci tllis is tltt:
{.1'rrrir:ils 51r't,ilt,t,rr r.iir;t:liirrgin,g lltcsr-r frtnc:tiolis t.:f:fcclivci.r'{rii'i;rst 5o }jclit}:s.
'j'h* llar,Cotrrrr:ii t:i lrrrlilr i,s cr:nstitr.rtecl rtnclct''licctiorr'{ ol'thc .ic.JVC)ctit(l.ri Ai:l.
rct(:r. it r,c:rrsists t;f it1rrr'lrl* ..ttorncr' (icltrtrt';.tl of' Irrr.litr artcl ItIotr'blt-: $0lit:ilor'
r.{'i)t.r's(1t.}i. ill,.,,r. r{,.i)i.i lir i ,Sl.;tlt' liiit' L.or.tttt.:iis tli i}ti' liirt' ( tirtiitlil r:i' lrtclia (.Nl'i'
Itlllrir
'l'6c. l)rilr. tl.rrrrr:t I ,.it lrrcliir ;tt its lrrcctirtp-. hclci Dll :i(q.:i."()1;3 ccltr-';icicrt'e:cl lhc:
S[ritir. .,1't,,r. ,,,,r,rirl,,,rlrtir.,rr trrr N,lcirtirtrt' Cutlttttit.tcil. (:i)llsisLi]l.g ()1' Shi'i 5'
rlir.r,r,titiri i,'tfir. 1,,irlt.irl lJriirl.cl I)ir.gc:t trrxc.s ic, r:l,,liti;cl lrcl.{()tt ritltct' Iiiirrl t.irtr lc:i;iii

11. -9-
practitioncr undcr Scction 288 (z) of the Income'l'ax Act. 'Ihe Hon'ble Member
of this Cqmrnittcc after thorough examination submit the report before the Ilar
Council at its mccting hcld on zt).7.zor3,After consideration, Council accepted
the report submittcd by the Sub-Committee in this regard. The operative parl of
the Committee is reproduced below-
'I'hereforc in the above circtrrnstances aftcr perusal of ttre Acts &
Rules. wc are of the opinion when the legal practitioners are the
only class of pcrsons entitled to practice law U/s 29 of the
Advocates Act , Lg6L ( Law Professionals), there is no justification
for prohibiting Advocates to issue certificates or Reports in
Incorne- 'I'ax Act. ('['his is wel] supported by Bar Council of India Vs. A. K.
llalaji SLp (Cir.il) tTLSo-17t54/zotz).The aetivities performed by BPOs and
LI)Os clcl not constitutc practice of law and hence do not conflict with the Act.
'l'hc Bar Council clf India may take necessary steps in relation to the practice
of law by Chafl:cred Accountants and management firms, which is contrary to
the Act.
In vicw 9f thc ab<>vc, you arc kindly requested not to permit other than the legal
practitioncrs unclcr Section 288 (z) of the Income Tax Act. The detailed report
dated 3.6.2o13 submitted by Mr, S. Prabakaran and the other member which is
also approved by the Council is enclosed for your reference and take necessary
action.
Yours sincerel
Copy to : 1 . M r, S. I)rabakaran, Advocatc,
Co* Charirman, Bar Council of india,
63, Bharathiyar Street, Venkatesan Nagar,
Chennai- 600 O82.,Tamil Nadu.
2, iv|r. Rameshchandra G. Shah, Advocate
Member, Bar Council of India,
301, Chanccllor Apartment, Opp, RTO, Ring Road,
()pp. I(rishi Mangal Hall, Surat-395 OO 1, Gujarat.