Facts of the
Case
The complainant, Shri Amit M. Panchal, filed a
complaint against the respondent, CA Tehmul B. Sethna of M/s Apaji Amin &
Co. LLP, alleging serious professional misconduct arising from abuse of trust
and misuse of professional relationship. The respondent was closely associated
with the Environment Research & Development Centre, Ahmedabad, a charitable
trust established by the complainant’s family. After the demise of the founder
trustee, the respondent assumed control over the affairs of the trust and its
financial matters.
It was alleged that the respondent used personal
information of the complainant without consent to open a bank account in the complainant’s
name with South Indian Bank in 2007, forged signatures on PAN card copies,
telephone bills and cheques, and withdrew large sums of noted cash over several
years. The respondent also opened and operated bank accounts of the trust
without knowledge or authorization of the trustees and withdrew funds through
his peon for personal benefit. Search proceedings under Section 132 of the
Income-tax Act were conducted at the respondent’s premises in 2016, leading to
discovery of incriminating material and reopening of assessments.
Issues
Involved
Whether the respondent Chartered Accountant was
guilty of “Other Misconduct” under Item (2) of Part IV of the First Schedule to
the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 for forging signatures, illegally opening
and operating bank accounts, misappropriating trust funds, abusing professional
relationship, and bringing disrepute to the profession.
Petitioner’s
Arguments
The complainant contended that the respondent
forged documents and signatures, illegally opened bank accounts, misused
entrusted documents, withdrew trust funds through his peon, and concealed
material facts from trustees and authorities. It was argued that assessment
orders, charge sheets, statements recorded during search proceedings, and court
records conclusively established the respondent’s misconduct. The complainant
submitted that the respondent’s conduct was fraudulent, deceptive, and wholly
unbecoming of a Chartered Accountant.
Respondent’s
Arguments
The respondent denied the allegations and raised multiple
preliminary objections including lack of jurisdiction, improper quorum of the
Board, limitation under Rule 12, and pendency of criminal proceedings. On
merits, the respondent relied on forensic reports claiming that signatures were
not conclusively proved to be forged and argued that trustees were aware of
transactions. It was also contended that income tax assessments of the trust
did not attribute wrongdoing to him and that the complaint was motivated by
personal disputes.
Court Order
/ Findings
The Board of Discipline examined extensive
documentary evidence including bank account opening forms, assessment orders,
affidavits, statements recorded under the Income-tax Act, charge sheets, court
orders, and the respondent’s own admissions. The Board observed that the
respondent abused his professional position from the inception of the trust,
forged signatures, opened and operated bank accounts without authority,
misappropriated funds through intermediaries, and suppressed material facts.
The Board rejected the respondent’s objections
regarding quorum, jurisdiction, limitation and pendency of criminal
proceedings, holding that disciplinary proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature
and governed by preponderance of probabilities. The Board found that assessment
orders and search proceedings conclusively established the respondent’s modus
operandi and misuse of trust funds. Accordingly, the respondent was held guilty
of Other Misconduct for conduct unbecoming of a Chartered Accountant and for
bringing disrepute to the profession.
Important
Clarification
The Board clarified that forging documents,
misusing client information, illegally operating bank accounts, and
misappropriating funds entrusted during professional engagement constitute
grave Other Misconduct irrespective of pendency of criminal proceedings,
warranting strict disciplinary action to uphold professional integrity.
Final
Outcome
The Board of Discipline, ICAI, held that CA
Tehmul B. Sethna was GUILTY of Other Misconduct under Item (2) of Part IV
of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 read with Section
22. In exercise of powers under Section 21A(3), the Board removed his name
from the Register of Members for a period of one month and imposed a fine
of ₹1,00,000, payable within 60 days from receipt of the order, by order
dated 23.05.2024.
Source Link - https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1768816589_ShriAmitM.Panchalvs.CATehmulB.SethnaBoardofDisciplineICAI.pdf
Disclaimer
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