Rule 264 — Proceedings before Inquiry Officer.
The rule sets out how the Inquiry Officer conducts the inquiry.
Sub-rule (1) starts it: on receipt of the written statement of defence, or if no such statement is received within the time specified, the Inquiry Officer shall inquire into such of the charges as are not admitted. Sub-rule (2) requires him, in the course of the inquiry, to consider such documentary evidence and take such oral evidence as may be relevant or material in regard to the charges.
Sub-rule (3) gives the authorised income-tax practitioner the right to cross-examine witnesses examined in support of the charges and to give evidence in person. Sub-rule (4) requires the Inquiry Officer, if he declines to examine any witness on the ground that his evidence is not relevant or material, to record his reasons in writing.
Sub-rule (5) requires him, at the conclusion of the inquiry, to prepare a report of the inquiry recording his findings on each of the charges together with the reasons for them.
An inquiry into an authorised income-tax practitioner's conduct can end in consequences for his ability to practise, so the rule builds the minimum of a fair hearing into it: the inquiry proceeds only on charges not admitted, evidence on both sides is taken, the practitioner may test the case against him and give evidence himself, a refusal to hear a witness must be justified in writing, and the outcome must be a reasoned finding on each charge rather than a conclusion.
The scope of the inquiry is narrowed at the outset by sub-rule (1): only charges that are not admitted are inquired into, so an admission in the written statement of defence takes that charge out of the evidence-gathering stage though not out of the report, which under sub-rule (5) must record findings on each of the charges. Failing to file a written statement does not stall matters — the inquiry proceeds if none is received within the time specified. The practitioner's rights in sub-rule (3) are two and separate: to cross-examine the witnesses examined in support of the charges, and to give evidence in person. Sub-rule (4) does not stop the Inquiry Officer from refusing a witness; it requires him to record his reasons in writing when the refusal is on the ground that the evidence is not relevant or material, which is what makes the refusal examinable later. The rule takes matters as far as the report; what is done with the report is not settled here.
An authorised income-tax practitioner faces three charges and admits one in his written statement of defence. The Inquiry Officer inquires into the remaining two, takes the documents and the oral evidence he considers relevant, and allows the practitioner to cross-examine the witnesses and to give evidence himself. He declines to examine one witness offered by the practitioner as not relevant, and records his reasons in writing. His report then records findings, with reasons, on each of the three charges.
You meet it in disciplinary proceedings against an authorised income-tax practitioner, from the written statement of defence through the hearing to the Inquiry Officer's report.
On receipt of the written statement of defence, or if no such statement is received within the time specified, the Inquiry Officer shall inquire into such of the charges as are not admitted.
The authorised income-tax practitioner shall be entitled to cross-examine witnesses examined in support of the charges and to give evidence in person.