Rule 262 — Charge-sheet.
Sub-rule (1) starts disciplinary proceedings against an authorised income-tax practitioner. Where the prescribed authority, on the basis of information in its possession, is of the opinion that prima facie the practitioner is guilty of misconduct in connection with any income-tax proceedings, it shall frame definite charges against him and shall communicate them in writing to him, together with a statement of the allegations in support of the charges.
Sub-rule (2) gives him his answer. He is required to submit, within such time as may be specified by the prescribed authority, a written statement of his defence, and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person.
Misconduct proceedings against a practitioner can end his right to appear, so they cannot begin on a general accusation. The rule requires the authority to convert its information into definite charges, to put them in writing, and to supply the allegations that support them, which is what makes a defence possible. Sub-rule (2) then sets the practitioner's obligation to answer in writing and lets him ask for a personal hearing rather than leaving that to be inferred.
| What | Figure | The condition on it | Where |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time to submit the written statement of defence | Within such time as may be specified by the prescribed authority | No fixed period; the period is what the prescribed authority specifies in the case | Rule 262(2) |
Three things have to be in the document that starts the proceeding: definite charges, in writing, and a statement of the allegations in support of them. An intimation that names misconduct without particulars does not answer sub-rule (1), because the charges must be definite and the supporting allegations must accompany them. The threshold for framing is only a prima facie opinion formed on information in the authority's possession, so the framing of charges is not a finding of guilt. On the practitioner's side, two responses are required by sub-rule (2), not one — the written statement of defence, and a statement whether he desires to be heard in person — and the time for both is whatever the prescribed authority specifies, since the rule fixes no period.
A prescribed authority receives information suggesting an authorised income-tax practitioner filed a verification he knew to be false in an assessment. It forms a prima facie opinion of misconduct and issues a communication framing that specific charge in writing, with the allegations supporting it, and fixing a period for reply. The practitioner must file a written statement of his defence within that period and say whether he wishes to be heard in person.
You meet it as the charge-sheet a practitioner receives from the prescribed authority, and as the written statement of defence he files in reply.
it shall frame definite charges against the income-tax practitioner and shall communicate them in writing to him, together with a statement of the allegations in support of the charges
a written statement of his defence and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person