Facts of the Case
The present disciplinary
proceedings arose from a complaint filed by Shri Sudip Roy, Superintendent of
Police and Head of Branch, Central Bureau of Investigation, Economic Offence
Wing, Kolkata, against CA Gopal Pitti (M. No. 053621), partner of M/s G. Pitti
& Co., Kolkata.
The complaint emanated from a
CBI investigation registered on 2 September 2016 concerning financial
irregularities linked to a car loan transaction involving a second-hand Honda
City car bearing registration number WB-06C-8250.
The investigation revealed that
the vehicle, already owned by Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh (then Chief Manager,
Allahabad Bank), was allegedly shown as being sold through M/s First Drive, a
dealer in second-hand vehicles, on the basis of fabricated bills and delivery
challans. These documents were allegedly used to obtain a car loan of Rs. 4
lakhs from Allahabad Bank.
The role attributed to the
Respondent was that he connived with one Shri Anil Agarwal of M/s First Drive
in preparing and circulating fake documents and further assisted in routing and
adjusting an amount of Rs. 4,70,000 through Hena Vincom Pvt. Ltd., ultimately
handing over cash to Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh.
Based on the Director
(Discipline)’s investigation and subsequent proceedings, the matter was placed
before the Board of Discipline under Section 21A of the Chartered Accountants
Act, 1949.
Issues Involved
- Whether CA Gopal Pitti was involved in preparation
and circulation of fake bills and delivery challans relating to the sale
of a second-hand car.
- Whether the Respondent connived with third parties
to facilitate misuse of bank loan funds.
- Whether such conduct amounted to “Other
Misconduct” under Item (2) of Part IV of the First Schedule to the
Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 read with Section 22.
- What disciplinary action, if any, was warranted
under Section 21A(3) of the Act.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The Complainant, through the
CBI investigation, alleged that:
- The Respondent knowingly assisted in creation and
circulation of false documents showing sale of a second-hand Honda City
car.
- These documents were used by a senior bank
official to obtain a car loan fraudulently.
- The Respondent played an active role in adjusting
and routing funds amounting to Rs. 4,70,000 to conceal the fraudulent
transaction.
- Such acts constituted serious professional
misconduct affecting public trust and the integrity of the profession.
The Complainant relied on
recorded statements, documentary evidence seized during investigation, and the
overall chain of transactions to establish the Respondent’s complicity.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Respondent denied
involvement in the alleged fraudulent transaction and submitted that:
- The events in question pertained to transactions
more than ten years old, making retrieval of documentary evidence
difficult.
- Allegations were primarily based on third-party
statements which were contradictory in nature.
- No opportunity for cross-examination of third
parties was provided.
- The bill forwarded by the Respondent through email
was not used for obtaining the loan, as the loan application had already
been submitted earlier on the basis of a different bill.
- Payments routed through Hena Vincom Pvt. Ltd. did
not establish his direct involvement in any cash transaction.
The Respondent sought quashing
of charges on the ground of lack of direct evidence.
Court Order / Findings of the
Board of Discipline
After examining the charge
sheet, recorded statements, documentary evidence, and submissions of the
Respondent, the Board of Discipline made detailed observations.
The Board found that:
- The Respondent was well aware of the parties
involved and the nature of the transaction.
- The Respondent had prior acquaintance with Shri
Anil Agarwal of M/s First Drive and actively facilitated preparation and
circulation of documents.
- The Respondent played a key role in adjusting the
amount of Rs. 4,70,000 by routing it through Hena Vincom Pvt. Ltd. and
handing over cash to the bank official.
- The Respondent himself admitted during the hearing
that he had mistakenly emailed the bills, which demonstrated his
involvement.
On appreciation of the entire
material, the Board concluded that the Respondent had connived in preparing
fake documents and facilitating a fraudulent loan transaction.
Accordingly, the Board held CA
Gopal Pitti guilty of “Other Misconduct” under Item (2) of Part IV of the First
Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.
Considering the facts,
misconduct, and representation made by the Respondent at the hearing, the
Board, exercising powers under Section 21A(3) of the Act, decided to reprimand
the Respondent.
Important Clarification
- The order reinforces that involvement of a
Chartered Accountant in preparation or facilitation of false documents,
even indirectly, amounts to serious professional misconduct.
- Connivance with third parties in financial
irregularities undermines public confidence and attracts disciplinary
action irrespective of criminal conviction.
- Even where mitigating circumstances are pleaded,
established misconduct under the Chartered Accountants Act warrants
appropriate disciplinary sanction.
- Reprimand by the Board of Discipline serves as a
formal censure and remains a significant adverse finding on professional
record.
Professional Significance
This decision highlights the
high ethical threshold expected from Chartered Accountants, especially where
transactions involve public institutions, bank finance, and documentary
authenticity. It serves as an important precedent on “Other Misconduct” under
the First Schedule of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.
This content is shared strictly for
general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently
verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide
legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation
disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has
been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment