Rule 259 of the Income-tax Rules, 2026

Where this rule sits

← Rule 258  ·  Rule 260 →

What this rule does

Sub-rule (1) requires the specified authority, if at any time satisfied that a certificate of registration was obtained through misrepresentation as to an essential fact, to order the removal of the name of the income-tax practitioner from the register. The obligation is expressed as "shall" once the satisfaction is reached.

Sub-rule (2) conditions that order: it shall not be passed unless the authorised income-tax practitioner has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard regarding the proposed removal.

Why it is there

A certificate of registration obtained by misrepresenting an essential fact was never validly earned, and the register cannot be allowed to carry it. But removal ends a practitioner's authority to act, so the rule pairs the mandatory removal with a mandatory hearing — the practitioner must be able to answer the allegation of misrepresentation before the order is passed.

Who it applies to

• An income-tax practitioner holding a certificate of registration
• The specified authority satisfied that the certificate was obtained through misrepresentation as to an essential fact

What this means in practice

Two limits give the rule its shape. The misrepresentation must be as to an essential fact — an inaccuracy that did not go to the grant is not within the sub-rule — and there is no time limit, because the authority may act "at any time". Once the satisfaction is reached the order follows: sub-rule (1) says the authority shall order removal, not that he may. The safeguard is procedural rather than substantive, and it is absolute in its own terms — sub-rule (2) bars the order unless a reasonable opportunity of being heard has been given, so an order passed on undeniable material but without a hearing is still outside the rule. Note the ground is confined to how the certificate was obtained; misconduct after registration is not what this rule addresses.

An example

A practitioner obtained his certificate of registration on the strength of a qualification he did not in fact hold. Years later the specified authority comes to know of it. Because sub-rule (1) is not time-limited, the authority may act, but it must first put the material to the practitioner and give him a reasonable opportunity of being heard on the proposed removal. Having done so and being satisfied that the certificate was obtained through misrepresentation as to an essential fact, the authority orders removal of his name from the register.

Where you meet this rule

A practitioner meets it as a notice proposing removal of his name from the register on the ground that his certificate was obtained by misrepresentation, and then as the order that follows the hearing.

The words themselves

What people get wrong

• Reading removal as discretionary. Sub-rule (1) says the authority shall order removal once satisfied of misrepresentation as to an essential fact.
• Assuming a time limit. The power is exercisable if at any time the specified authority is so satisfied.
• Using the rule for post-registration misconduct. The ground is that the certificate of registration was obtained through misrepresentation as to an essential fact.
• Passing the order on the strength of the material alone. Sub-rule (2) bars it unless a reasonable opportunity of being heard has been given.