--- title: An income-tax representative missed hearings a client had paid for. An ex-parte demand of ₹56 lakh followed. description: A client paid a chartered accountant to represent her before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. He never appeared, and the Board found him guilty of negligence bringing disrepute to the profession. case_number: BOD 646/2022 file_number: PR/300/2018/DD/301/2018/BOD/646/2022 forum: board-of-discipline institute: icai decided_on: 2025-09-26 punished_on: 2025-12-30 outcome: Removal clauses: Item (2) of Part IV of the First Schedule order_pdf: https://disc.icai.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/22.-BOD-646-2022.pdf published: 2026-09-07 author: Jainam Shah keywords: bod 646 2022, item 2 part iv first schedule, section 22 chartered accountants act, other misconduct, income tax appellate tribunal, negligence towards client, board of discipline removal source: /icai/board-of-discipline/bod-646-2022 --- # An income-tax representative missed hearings a client had paid for. An ex-parte demand of ₹56 lakh followed. A client in Satara hired a Pune chartered accountant to pursue her income-tax appeals, and paid him to see them through.[^parties] The Tribunal decided against her while, by her account, he was nowhere to be found. ## What happened ```timeline A client in Satara hires a Pune chartered accountant to pursue her appeals against income-tax assessment orders spanning six years, before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and later the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, paying him for the work. He is formally authorised to represent her only well into the appeal, after some of its hearings have already gone by. Further hearings are fixed after that, and he does not appear at them either; no adjournment is sought on his behalf. An ex-parte order follows, confirming a substantial tax demand against her. She loses part of her salary to recovery proceedings and says the family's finances and her spouse's career suffer as a result. She takes the matter to the Institute. The screening authority twice finds no case to answer; the Board itself disagrees both times and sends the matter forward for a full hearing. Over the years that follow, hearings are fixed repeatedly, and the respondent neither appears nor files any explanation on any occasion. The Board finds him guilty of negligence toward his client, serious enough to bring disrepute to the profession. Called to answer for the punishment months later, he again does not appear, and the Board removes his name from the Register for three months. ``` The complaint's own arithmetic did not entirely hold up. Of the four Tribunal hearing dates the client cited as dates he had failed to attend, three had passed before he was even authorised to represent her — his authorisation began only after those three dates, and only the fourth was genuinely his to answer for (para 2). Neither side ever produced the complete Tribunal order to settle the point either way (para 2). That gap did not save him. The client's account was that despite paying his full fee, he never appeared before the Tribunal, and "this assertion stands corroborated by the order passed by the ITAT, Pune Bench, which records the absence of the authorized representative on the scheduled dates of hearing" (para 9). Against that, he offered nothing at all: no written statement, no appearance, no explanation, at any of the seven hearings the Board fixed over more than two years (para 10). ## The charge Part IV of the First Schedule is the Schedule's catch-all: "other misconduct" that does not fit the specific numbered items elsewhere in it, but that the Council still considers serious enough to punish. It is cited together with Section 22 of the Act, the section that gives "professional or other misconduct" its meaning under the Schedules in the first place.[^section22] - **Item (2) of Part IV**, read with Section 22 — conduct that, in the opinion of the Council or its Boards, brings disrepute to the profession.[^item2] This order used that catch-all not for solicitation or a paperwork lapse, but for what the Board called negligence and dereliction of duty toward a client who had paid for representation and did not get it. The Board found the respondent guilty and later removed his name from the Register for three months. ## What the respondent said He offered no defence at all. Across seven hearings fixed over more than two years, and despite repeated notices, he never filed a written statement, never appeared in person, and never answered the Board's own request for the complete Tribunal order and details of the counsel who had represented the client (para 3, para 10). His only recorded participation was requesting two of those hearings be adjourned, before the case was decided against him without him ever being in the room to argue it. ## What the Board held The screening stage had twice cleared him. The Director (Discipline) found no prima facie case, on the material available and again after the Board sought further documents that neither side supplied. The Board disagreed both times — first at its 169th meeting, referring the matter back, and again at its 230th meeting — before the case proceeded to a full hearing.[^screening] On the merits, the Board treated his total silence as decisive alongside the client's own account and the Tribunal's order. It held that his conduct "amounted to gross negligence and a dereliction of professional duty, falling far short of the standards of diligence and care expected of a Chartered Accountant in practice, especially in matters with serious legal and financial implications for the client" (para 11), and concluded: > the Board finds that the Respondent is Guilty of negligence and lack of due diligence. Such > conduct, in the considered opinion of the Board, constitutes Other Misconduct under item (2) > of Part IV of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, read with Section > 22 of the said Act (para 12) ## The order At the punishment stage the respondent again did not appear — not once across six hearings on guilt, nor at the hearing fixed to decide the punishment. The Board recorded: > Such continued non-appearance clearly evinced a lack of bona fide interest in participating > in the proceedings. It proceeded ex parte and ordered: > the Board hereby resolves to remove the name of [the Respondent] from the Register of > Members for a period of three (3) months.[^bracket] Three months' removal sits above a reprimand on the Board's scale of punishment, and below the longer removals and fines it can also impose.[^removal] The same three-member Board passed both the findings and the punishment.[^coram] ## Why it matters *This section is ours, not the Board's.* **A hearing you are paid to attend is one you must attend.** He never turned up, the Tribunal recorded it, and that absence carried the guilty finding on its own. Confirm every hearing date directly with the client and the registry, not through a diary alone. **Silence before a disciplinary Board reads as guilt, not caution.** He never filed a written statement or appeared at any of the seven hearings fixed for the case. Even a bare denial preserves your position; total silence forfeits it. **A "not guilty" screening opinion is not the end of the matter.** The Board overturned its own Director (Discipline)'s opinion twice before this charge was even framed. Treat a favourable prima facie opinion as provisional, not as closure. **A weak spot in the complaint does not supply your defence.** Three of the four hearing dates cited against him predated his authority to appear at all, and he was still found guilty on the wider picture. You still need an answer of your own. This summarises a public order and links the primary source. It is general information, not legal or professional advice. [^parties]: The complainant was a client of the respondent's, in Satara, and is not herself a chartered accountant; she is not named on this page. She had engaged the respondent, *CA. Manojkumar Surajmaji Mundada*, of *M/s. Bhutada Mundada & Co.*, Pune, to pursue income-tax appeals for assessment years 1999-2000 to 2004-05. The case number and the signed punishment order both give his membership number as *M. No. 118598*; the findings' own header records it once as M. No. 120258, plainly a clerical slip, since 118598 is used everywhere else. This page uses 118598. [^item2]: Part IV of the First Schedule is headed "Other Misconduct." Item (2) covers conduct which, in the opinion of the Council or its Boards, brings disrepute to the profession — a catch-all rather than a rule about how a particular piece of work is done. [^section22]: Section 22 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 defines "professional or other misconduct" as including any act or omission specified in the First or Second Schedule to the Act. It is cited together with Item (2) of Part IV because that item is the general clause the definition brings into play, rather than one of the specific numbered misconducts found elsewhere in the Schedules. [^screening]: The Director (Discipline) twice found no prima facie case against the respondent — once on the material as it stood, and again after the Board asked both sides for further documents that neither supplied. The Board disagreed with that opinion at its 169th meeting, held 24 June 2021, and again at its 230th meeting, held 22 August 2022, before the matter proceeded to a full hearing under Chapter IV of the 2007 Procedure Rules (para 11). [^bracket]: The order names the respondent in this sentence; the original reads "the Board hereby resolves to remove the name of CA. Manojkumar Surajmaji Mundada (M.N0.118598) from the Register of Members for a period of three (3) months." Nothing else on this page alters the source text. [^removal]: Section 21A(3) gives the Board a graduated set of punishments: reprimand, removal of the name from the Register for a period, and a fine. Removal sits above a reprimand. Check the current sub-section before relying on any figure or ceiling — these have been amended over time. [^coram]: CA. Rajendra Kumar P (Presiding Officer), Ms. Dolly Chakrabarty (Government Nominee) and CA. Priti Savla (Member) sat on both the findings and the punishment order. The final hearing was held 29 July 2025 at ICAI Tower, Mumbai, with the client and her representative present in person and nobody appearing for the respondent; findings were signed 26 September 2025 and punishment passed, by video conference, 30 December 2025.