Category: BCAS@75

Q. (Gautam Nayak): We have the faceless assessment and faceless appeal system, where very often we see that a proper hearing is not given and when the submissions are made, they’re not being looked at. What is your view on this? Is Faceless Assessment a good thing? The government looks at it from the perspective that it will help reduce corruption. What’s your view on this?

 A. (Arvind Datar): I am only giving a view based on what I hear from my Chartered Accountant friends, who are appearing in faceless assessments. I think that in important cases, faceless assessment will not work satisfactorily. If it’s a routine matter, it does not matter if it is faceless; but if it’s a complicated case, it will not work. I don’t understand why for a foreign company, even where the amount is Rs. 50 Crores, there is a personal hearing, but if it is a domestic company, even if the amount is Rs. 1,000 crore, there is no personal hearing. Now, I am told that there is a provision that if I ask for a personal hearing, it has to be given. Faceless appeals are even worse. I don’t know whose idea this was, and I think it’s very, very sad to have faceless assessments and appeals because you can’t trust your own officers.

The point is if you make a law, which is so difficult, which is capable of multiple interpretations, then there is bound to be a system of corruption. And do you mean to say people cannot get over this faceless method? My assessment may be faceless, but my Balance Sheet is there. You know the name of my company. You know my address. You know my phone number, etc. So, you mean to say that you can’t game the system? You have to be incredibly naive to believe that if I can’t see the officer, there will be no corruption. Where are we going? Look at faceless appeals. I’m told that hardly any faceless appeals have been heard. There are 6,00,000 appeals pending. In the Supreme Court, the government said that ITAT appeals have drastically reduced, but I told the Court that this was because there were no disposals at the level of CIT(A). If there are no disposals, there will be no tribunal cases.

And I still don’t know why 6,00,000 appeals have suddenly accumulated in faceless appeals. Tell me, how do you argue an appeal before a judge in an appeal without seeing him? Just imagine if you’re going to a court, and there’s a black screen in front of you, and the judge is sitting behind. Can you argue an appeal effectively? It’s absolutely astonishing that anybody thinks that this is going to work. What is your aim? Reducing corruption? Or is your aim laying down the proper law?

Q. (Raman Jokhakar): That brings us to the next question, which is ‘the government as the biggest litigant’. And if we look at the statistics, almost 70 to 90 per cent of the cases between Tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court are lost by the government. You spoke about power and accountability; the combination of one without the other is absolutely lethal. So, when we look at a law with 120 words in one sentence or a section with 13 provisos coupled with the government as the biggest litigant, where does the taxpayer stand? The irony is that a taxpayer fights with his own money, and then he pays taxes to the government, with which the government will fight against him. So, it seems like a never-ending loop, and it is only going to drag all of us down.

A. There, I would partly express my sympathy with the Income-tax department. The officers know that the case has followed a settled Supreme Court judgment; there is no point in preparing an appeal. However, if it’s a case of more than Rs. 5 Crore to Rs. 10 Crore, it is almost certain that the appeal will be filed because if an officer doesn’t file the appeal, there could be some vigilance case against him. As a junior, I used to appear before the Commissioner of Central Excise or the CIT(A), and they would tell me that I had a good case, but sorry, I can’t help you; you try your luck before the tribunal.

In a lighter vein, I will tell you that I had appeared before a Commissioner of Central Excise in Bangalore, and he asked me what was the difference between appearing before a High Court and appearing before him. I had just gone to the Karnataka High Court and finished my case. So, I told him, Sir, when I appear before you, I have no tension. He asked why. I said, I know I am going to always lose the case before you. However, in a High Court, I may win, or I may lose. But before you, I know that whatever I say, you are going to reject it!

In India, you will seldom have a case where an officer from the Income-tax department or a public sector undertaking will accept an adverse order. Take arbitration cases. Here also, a government company will fight right up to Supreme Court as it has nothing to lose in fighting; but if it accepts the award, there could be a vigilance inquiry against it. And it costs the company nothing to file appeals.

 Q. (Raman Jokhakar): For frivolous cases, which are clearly, out of line, should there be some kind of solution?

A. Yes, Absolutely. There is a system of costs which nobody imposes. If you go to the UK, the winner wins with costs. Whether it’s an assessee or the department, you have to pay the costs of the other side. So, I will think twice before filing a frivolous appeal, if I know I have to pay the costs if I lose. And if both sides are represented by expensive seniors, then it’s going to be a huge expense, and therefore, if I know that I am going to lose the case, then I would rather settle. Unfortunately, we don’t have a system of costs. Take the case of a PIL; if somebody files a PIL to stop some project, it may go on for three years. Who pays for the cost of the litigation? Not the petitioner but the project suffers.

Q. (Mayur Nayak): You mentioned that laws are made for exceptions, some people do something wrong, and the entire community is punished. We see this happening quite frequently. Also, the way laws are passed in Parliament without discussion or debate and in the guise of clarifications, significant amendments are being carried out. Do you think that actually, the bureaucrats are calling the shots, as the lawmakers may not be even aware of the implications?

A. Definitely! The basic principle of constitutional law is that the Parliament makes the law, and the executive only implements it. You give them the power to issue notification, which is in the nature of delegated legislation and for which guidelines are laid down by the Parliament. Now what’s happening is that the law itself is made by the bureaucracy. For example, and very dangerously, the GST Act has provided that an exemption notification can have a retrospective effect. It is unheard of in most countries. And many major policy decisions, not only in income tax but in various other laws such as information technology, are done through notifications.

What is worse is that now even Circulars go beyond the Act. There is an Act, and then there is an 8-page Circular or FAQ. An officer asks the questions, and he himself gives the answers, and then he makes it far beyond the main Act itself. Where is your power to do that?

Q. (Gautam Nayak): In the last budget, TCS rates on LRS were increased from 5 per cent to 20 per cent and the scope expanded drastically; of course, there was some pushback from taxpayers, which did result in some relief to them. But then, why are such laws being made? Are bureaucrats completely out of touch with reality or what’s happening on the ground?

A. You’re right. The new TCS was absolutely shocking, but its impact was reduced by the limit of Rs. 7,00,000. This is done because people are leaving India and a lot of money through the LRS route is going out of India. By a 20 per cent TCS, you don’t address the problem of why people are sending money out of India. Nobody asks, what is the reason? That’s a larger systemic problem. Suppose there’s an outbreak of malaria, then starting more hospitals is not the answer. You should try to eliminate the source of malaria. The basic threshold limit for non-deduction of TCS is Rs. 7,00,000. But I know many cases of friends whose children are studying in foreign universities and have to remit over Rs. 7,00,000. Apart from tuition fees, they also have to pay for their hostel charges and so on. With the dollar value being at Rs. 82 and the pound being at Rs. 100, the total expenses often cross Rs. 7,00,000. The government gets 20 per cent TCS upfront, but you will get your refund or adjustment only after the assessment is made, say, after two years. So, for two years, the government can use your money. Because of this, a new system of remittances through unauthorised channels will start.

If my son is studying abroad, now Rs. 100 is going to cost me Rs. 120, and it will be quite burdensome for many people who have taken loans to fund education. For them, overnight, the cost goes up by 20 per cent. This is unfortunate. As I said, the whole focus is to maximise revenue, regardless of the hardship.

Q. (Raman Jokhakar): If you were the lawmaker, what changes would you like to make? Which are the big changes which can be done very quickly?

A. If I were in the hot seat, and if my goal was to have ease of doing business, then I would basically divide ease of doing business into three components, namely, (i) ease of starting a business, (ii) ease of running a business and (iii) ease of closing a business. In the case of ease of starting a business, State legislation is primarily involved. How do I get an electricity permit? How do I get land? We keep talking of single window clearance, but it is very often just in theory because every permit is a rent-seeking mechanism; for every little permission, you have to pay some additional amount, which really discourages people from investing.

On ease of doing business, once the business starts, the major role is that of the taxman. There, I would say, focus on growth maximisation.

We are all very enamoured by these Startups and Angel Investments, etc. But we forget that manufacturing has gone down. We want to create 100 million jobs. How will you do this? To attract investments in the manufacturing sector, India has to benchmark with Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia and see what they are doing and how our tax system compares. If I want to market India, I must make India attractive. I personally feel the government’s attitude is that this is my business ecosystem. If you want to come, you come. I will not make any changes. Suppose I’m manufacturing a TV; then I have to make a TV that the customer wants. I can’t simply say I’ve got a 26.4-inch TV, which is diagonal in shape. If you want, you take it. This way, nobody will buy. Nobody has bothered to ask why big manufacturers throughout the world are investing in Thailand, Vietnam etc. My mother bought a blood pressure monitor. It’s made in Vietnam. Why can’t it be made in India? I bought a refrigerator that was made in Thailand. Nobody has asked Samsung: What do you want to set up your plant in India? Our import from China stands at 100 billion dollars; just imagine if even half is made in India. Can you imagine the employment that is generated? I would advise the Government to do what the private company does. Market India. Get feedback about what will attract FDI. On ease of closing a business, a classic example is the Ford plant in Taloja. It could not be shut down for six years. Where is the need for getting permission? So, all these three aspects — starting a business, doing, or running a business, and closing a business — must be made business-friendly. I hope that both the States and the Centre work in tandem. This is not very difficult.

Q. (Gautam Nayak): Another issue is about the taxation of Charitable Trusts. The law was fairly simple until maybe around 10 years back. However, over the past 10 years, taxation of Charitable Trusts has become more complex than business taxation. It is far easier to comply for a business than for a charitable trust. Most Charitable Trusts run on a part-time basis; even employees are working like that. So, today setting up a small charitable trust is very discouraging. The law is such that, for a small mistake, you could end up losing almost half of your corpus. Unfortunately, there is no distinction between a small and a large charitable trust. What should be the law for Charitable Trusts? What is your thinking on this?

A.  I often feel that taxation of charitable trusts is perhaps the best example of how our entire tax system is wrong. You lose sight of the objective. Look at the recent judgment on a charitable trust, in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development. The unworkable rule is that you can make profits, but you can’t profiteer. You can’t have more than 15 per cent as your surplus. You can’t do this. You can’t do that. Look at Section 10(23C). It has some 19 explanations, and perhaps 22 provisos. Today, Harvard has a corpus of 5 to 6 billion dollars. The same is with Oxford. Nobody keeps on harassing Oxford; are you charging more or less? How are you doing? These Charitable Trusts are NGOs doing wonderful work. And why the NGOs? Because the government can’t do everything and therefore an NGO steps in. And what is wrong if an NGO makes more than 15 per cent as surplus but applies 85 per cent of the surplus to its charitable objects? I mentioned education. Let’s consider trusts which come under the General Public Utility (GPU) character under section 2(15). The Finance Act, brought in a law in 1998, providing that income from any activity of a GPU can’t be more than 20 per cent of the total receipts of a trust. Today a trust with GPU objective can’t do any activity at all except receiving donations. Suppose I employ destitute women and make them prepare incense sticks, then sell them, and if my income is more than  20 per cent from this activity, then I lose my exemption. There’s also no exit route today. Many people are telling me that we don’t want a charitable status. We will just go away because the headache of having a charitable trust is too much. The provisions of section 115 TD have horrendous consequences and now the trustees will also be liable to pay the tax. As you rightly put it, taxation of charitable trusts has completely gone out of hand, and I want to know what the total tax collection from Charitable Trust is. Do you say that you will treat the projects of the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority to make it a profit-making entity? The Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation has given its land on 99-year lease and collected Rs.5,000 Crores. The same money is ploughed back into infrastructure development, and you say it is a commercial activity? Is an Industrial Development Corporation of a State engaged in commercial activity and like a private corporation taxable? Something is seriously wrong with our policy where the aim is just to collect more taxes. As you rightly put it, in the last 10 years, it has become very, very difficult to run a charitable trust. You don’t know when you’re going to get into a problem. So, I think there could be a one-time settlement scheme for trusts or some exit route without any significant increase in tax collection. We are leaving, please leave us alone. The law has become complex. Suppose a school, college or any other educational institution has a playground or an auditorium which it wants to give on hire, for some wedding function or a music program; then it can face trouble. It can be alleged that the said entity has ceased to exist solely for the purpose of education. Unfortunately, it cannot monetise its real estate and use the money to provide for scholarships.

Q. (Gautam Nayak): So, even fund-raising is a problem. It may also be regarded as a business activity and not incidental, resulting in a loss of exemption.

A. Very true. Many organisations have lost their FCRA recognition and even the benefit of Section 12AA. They can’t get any donations, even for genuine activities that are in the public interest. It is a very difficult situation.

Q. (Raman Jokhakar): Making drastic changes in Trust Laws is not justified. When I started a Charitable Trust, there was X law; now, it has changed dramatically. Justifiably, I should have an exit route, if I don’t want to be in the game. Don’t you think bringing such laws is too harsh without an exit route?

A. Just look at the number of amendments to Sections 11, 12 and 13. These three sections are now, perhaps, 10 times more complicated than business taxation. To check abuse by a few trusts which have abused the provisions, you have punished all charitable trusts.

Q. (Mayur Nayak): Absolutely. The most uncharitable treatment to charitable trusts.

A. And again, as I said, just because, say, 5 per cent trusts are bad, maybe doing some unlawful activities, you hit really genuine charitable trusts. I know many, many genuine charitable trusts are in trouble because of these changes.

Q. (Mayur Nayak): Government should concentrate on the expenses. Whether I’m spending on the object rather than on my source of revenue? There has to be a revenue model.

A. Exactly. Suppose autistic children or somebody makes products like pappad, pickles, or something else, and even if they are sold at 500 per cent profits, no question should be raised as long as 85 per cent of its revenue is applied to its charitable activity.

Q. (Mayur Nayak): Sir, my next question is relating to the taxation of agricultural income. I know it is a state subject and politically sensitive too; therefore, no government would like to touch it. However, by exempting agriculture income, a large part of our GDP is going tax-free, and people may be using it to convert their black money as a lot of cash is generated in this sector. What is your view on that? And how is the experience worldwide?

A. I don’t know much about the worldwide experience, but agriculture is subsidised in many countries. As far as agriculture is concerned, ever since I joined the bar, there is a constant saying that agriculture must bear some of the tax burden, particularly the rich farmers. But, for the last 42 years, nothing has happened. Maybe, because many of the political people have got into agriculture activities. So, in our lifetime, I don’t think any change is going to come to tax agricultural income at all. This will always be treated as a holy cow which can’t be touched.

Q. (Raman Jokhakar): Sir, about GST, you have been quite vocal, and on 1st July, 2023, we completed six years. Bringing all taxes into one was a huge opportunity. Now, when you look back compared to its potential and reality, how do you see it upon completion of six years?

A.  See, in all fairness, when I speak to people. I find that many of the large industries are happy with GST, but there are serious challenges for the small sector. Now there is no octroi, so the goods which took eight days to transport now reach their destination in three to four days. So, it would be wrong to say that it’s a complete disaster. There are a lot of good points. It’s not a joke for a large country like India to have this entire electronic system. It has a lot of glitches, but what is worrisome in GST is that there is a promise of one nation –seamless credit. However, the entire approach of the legislature seems to be to disallow input tax credit (ITC) at any cost. For example, Works Contract. You declare the works contract to be a service and still, you don’t get or restrict ITC. You want to make malls, warehouses, logistics etc. liable to GST, but when it comes to giving ITC, you say it’s immovable property and, therefore, no credit is given. When you want to collect duty, you tax them as services, but when it comes to ITC, you say they are immovable properties and deny credit. There is inherent unfairness in the whole system. And there are so many other points which have not been addressed in GST. Dr Kelkar suggested a maximum GST rate of 12 per cent. However, even now, cement is taxed at the rate of 28 per cent. What is the justification of putting 28 per cent tax on cement? You want to develop infrastructure, but you levy 28 per cent tax, most of which cannot be used as ITC credit? I mean, you’re only penalising the common man. There are a lot of provisions that militate against the concept of a real GST. The dream of “one nation, one tax” will perhaps never be realized. And again, the provision of attaching accounts at random has a crippling effect. There is some discrepancy and you just come and attach the bank account. That is a very, very harsh provision. The way sections 73 and 74 are implemented leaves much to be desired. In several cases, duty has been demanded for the last five years with interest and, sometimes, even a penalty.

 Q. (Gautam Nayak): Over the last 40 years, you’ve appeared in many cases, including many landmark cases. What is for you the most memorable Courtroom Debate?

A. Well, personally, I will say that one of the memorable events in my career is that I had a chance of hearing  Mr Palkhivala arguing the First Leasing case on investment allowance in the ITAT. I had the opportunity of hearing H M Seervai in the Madras High Court for a short while, and also Ram Jethmalani. So, I had the chance to see very, very eminent lawyers argue their cases, and that was a great learning experience. For me personally, the highlight would be the Sahara case, which I did non-stop from 2011 up to 2018-19; battle after battle, and we were able to do substantial justice. Regarding income tax, I did the case on investment allowance in the Supreme Court, which Mr Palkhivala argued in the ITAT. Then when it came to the High Court, I was supposed to brief him. But J R D Tata had died, and Palkhivala had to attend his funeral, so he could not come. I argued in the High Court, and we won the case by God’s grace. And when it came before the Supreme Court, it was before Justice Ms Sujata Manohar. It was a turning point in my career. I had worked very hard, and I still remember when I finished my arguments, Mr Soli Sorabjee, whom I didn’t know so well at that time, came and said, “Young man, you’ve done very well”. We won that case. After 1996, my work in the Supreme Court slowly started picking up. The other memorable case for me was a challenge to the National Company Law Tribunal. A very happy moment for me was when the National Tax Tribunal (NTT) was struck down. I tell people now that if the NTT case had been lost, there would be no High Court dealing with taxation. It would have been ITAT, NTT and the Supreme Court. We now have a situation where judges in the High Court will never even open the Companies Act as the NCLT has exclusive jurisdiction. I am happy to have argued several other matters, such as the reading down of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, the Aadhar case, and the Padmanabhaswamy Temple case. One recent case that gave me much satisfaction was about the armed forces. There was a wrong judgment of the Supreme Court saying that jawans of the armed forces could not go to the High Court against the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal; they must only go to the Supreme Court. We got that issue referred to a bench of three judges and they overruled the earlier view. Now, several jawans and their widows can approach their local High Courts; they need not go to the Supreme Court. Almost 30 per cent of my work is pro bono, and cases like these give me a lot of satisfaction and are a great learning experience.

 Q. (Raman Jokhakar): Maintaining a work-life balance today is a big problem and professionals are always stretching their time. What’s your secret or mantra or tips to others to strike a balance between work, personal life, health, and family?

Oh, it’s a very big struggle. I mean, it’s always very difficult. Fortunately, now travel is much easier. When I was a junior lawyer, there was only Indian Airlines. Flights were limited. Only later did the air sector open up. In those days, we had to go by overnight train to most places. I was fortunate to get the full support from my wife and my family during my early years of struggle. As I said, I used to take lectures, teach at institutes, and so on. My first lecture was at 6:30 am in the morning and again at 6:30 pm in the evening. So, I had to get up at 4:00am, take a bus, go to class, and then go to court. Take a class again in the evening and come back. So, it was a great struggle. I tried to sort it out by stopping working on Sundays. Whatever happens, I have kept Sundays free for the family. Then again, take at least two holidays in a year with the family together. That was one way I did balancing. As far as possible, I tried to attend all the children’s functions. Work-life balance was also a big problem because I had started writing books. I noted that Palkhivala had written a book before he was 30. So, I decided that I would also write a book before I was 30. So, I wrote my first book on Central Excise, but I was 32 then. But the year my book came, my income went up by  400 per cent in one year because of the book. I keep telling young lawyers and chartered accountants to ‘write.’ And whether your book sells or not, it’s a great learning experience for you. It’s like R and D. For me, classes, writing books, articles and also continuing my practice took a huge toll on time. But one must ensure that we spend more time with the family. I tell people that please spend time with your children. Once they grow up, then you miss all the fun of seeing them grow up. Especially in a city like Bombay, where travelling takes a lot of time. Fortunately for Zoom, now we are able to save a lot of travelling time. But you must carve out a particular time, say, Friday evening or Saturday evening and keep this personal time like a business appointment. For example, on Sundays, I don’t work at all unless there is an emergency and that’s completely sacred So, I make sure that on Sundays I am at home and try to take two vacations with the family. One more thing is that unless you work extraordinarily hard, you can’t provide all the material comforts to your family. If you want to buy a house, a car etc., all that will take extra work. And when you have so much competition around, you need to work as hard as you can.

Q.  (Mayur Nayak): Sir, I heard your video on motivational talk to young lawyers. At the beginning of your career, you were reading others’ autobiographies and you got inspired by your mentors. Today, you are in the mentoring position, so what advice would you like to give youngsters? My second question is: How was your experience of updating Mr Palkhivala’s book?

A. I will answer both these questions one by one. Firstly, advice to youngsters. I get interns all the time, and I can tell you that most of them are extremely bright. They’ve got the benefit of technology. The case laws are at their fingertips, everything is there. So, the present generation is far brighter than what we were, and honestly, they are very good and analytical. And again, it’s like the 80:20 rule; there are 20 per cent who are very serious about the profession, 80 per cent will just move along, and ultimately, this 10 to 20 per cent will then go to the top. But today, they have a lot of resources, and they have technology in their favour, which they can leverage. But old or new, the general principles of having a good mentor, following your role models, and working very hard always will continue. I tell young professionals that they must have a niche area of practice for themselves. If you do general civil law, then there are 50,000 advocates doing the same thing. How do you distinguish yourself? So, better to focus on specialisation where you establish that you are a master in that subject, whether it is criminal law or PMLA or income tax or whatever it is. Please take up one area as your specialisation and acquire mastery in that field. And you can acquire mastery by writing books, or articles, or having a blog. If you are writing articles, do so consistently. That’s what I will advise.

Secondly, I’ll advise youngsters that please don’t chase money. Money should be the byproduct. Professional excellence should be your aim. Money will come. If you keep focusing on your profession, the money will follow. But if you chase money first, then the temptation will be to take shortcuts etc. which is very, very serious. Thirdly, I would say that even today or at any point, honesty is always the best policy. You may suffer in the short run. You may have difficulties, but in the long run, you will always benefit, and you can hold your head high and say that whatever you did, you did not take shortcuts. I did not compromise. The means don’t justify the end.

Now coming to the Kanga and Palkhivala commentary, actually, I wrote my Excise book in 1988. I was eight years in the bar, and that book was, fortunately, a big success. Then I wrote Central Excise Procedures. Then my publisher, Wadhwa & Company, said that nobody is updating Ramaiya’s book. Why don’t you take it up? I was doing some company work also, and the Company Law Board was just starting. So, I started being the editor of Ramaiya’s Commentary. So, I was doing both Excise and Company Law. Both books helped me greatly because I developed a large practice before the Company Law Board and before the CESTAT. I had the chance to argue many, many important cases. So, these books were a great help. Mr Dinesh Vyas brought out the 9th edition, but he could not then continue beyond the 9th edition. Lexis Nexis took the copyright from N M Tripathi. And I still remember the day when Mr Wadhwa came with their foreign Managing Director. He came and said, “Look, this book is a classic and a very prestigious title and we would like you to take it up.” I said, “I don’t have time.” He said, “Please take it up; otherwise, the book will die. The entire work of Mr Palkhivala will die.” Then I took it as a challenge. The 10th edition came out in 2014. Before that book, I also wrote the “Courtroom Genius,” which was about the life of Mr Palkhivala. I came into very intimate contact with Mr Behram Palkhivala. We did a lot of work on that book and when we published the 10th edition, I insisted that it had the same font size, the same grey colour that was on the 7th edition, which was the last edition Mr Palkhivala worked on personally. I brought back the same look. Before the release, I gave the first copy to Behram Palkhivala, He had tears in his eyes. He hugged me and said, “I am so proud of this book.” In the public function where it was released by Chief Justice SP Barucha, Mr Behram Palkhivala said a sentence that I’ll never forget in my life. He said: “This book has been written by my younger brother, of which my elder brother would have been very proud.” That brought tears to my eyes. The 10th edition was a huge success. When COVID came, we couldn’t work at all, and we couldn’t go to court. I used that time to finish the 11th edition that was released in 2020. Now the 12th edition should come in 2024. This year my schedule is to bring out my book on the Constitution. I’m just finishing it. And 2024 will be the next edition of Kanga and Palkhivala. People say that because of the elections, the budget may get postponed beyond May. So, in 2024, hopefully, I should be able to give all of you the 12th edition of Kanga and Palkhivala.

Q. (Gautam Nayak): You have many interns working with you. From your experience, what do you see missing in the younger generation? Is there something which you feel they should inculcate, but which is lacking today?

A. Well, There is a consistent pattern. When I work with a team of, say, 10 young interns, I find that there are 2 or 3 who are exceptional, working more, writing articles, or going beyond the average practice day. The remaining 8 are just doing their job. They’re doing it well, but you cannot make a mark unless you go the extra mile. Everybody is working eight hours; unless you work the extra four hours, you’re not going to make a mark. Somebody said that it’s what you do in your spare time that decides who you are. So, when you get home and burn the midnight oil or you get up at 4:00 o’clock and write an article, that’s what makes the distinction. So, among the youngsters, I find that the same pattern continues, which was there in my time. Ultimately, in every generation, a smaller percentage will outwork everybody and rise to the top. I think that will happen all the time.

Q. (Mayur Nayak): In your opinion, what are the opportunities and threats to young professionals?

A. Let’s talk of Chartered Accountants. I think you have to decide whether you’re going for audit or tax. Suppose as a Chartered Accountant, you want to focus on litigation. Then I would say that go to the Tribunal every day. Attend the hearing. Even if you don’t have a case. If you’re free, just go and see how the cases are being argued. Keep a notebook. Keep jotting down all the important points. One important thing for youngster is that once they decide on their chosen field, they must try to attain mastery in that field, partly by role modelling, following what eminent lawyers and eminent Chartered Accountants are doing and following the same pattern. Then when you get a brief, try to do it as best as you can. Try to go the extra mile to see if some new argument can be put forth. Then I tell youngsters that whether you like it or not, if you’re going to practice, your English is very important. So, I tell people that as far as possible, stick to speaking English and try to improve your communication skills constantly. Read biographies. It is very important to keep a notebook and jot down important cases and phrases all the time. Even today, if I come across an unusual judgment, I make a note of it. And one thing is there. You have to be consistent. You can’t just stop work one day at 5:00 pm and get up at 4:00 am. Whatever you do, it has to be on a consistent pattern. I would advise youngsters to set their goals. It is 2023; decide where you want to be in 2025. And then work backwards. Suppose you want to write a book by 2025; you must start writing everyday? Do you want to earn Rs. 10,00,000? What specialised service you are going to offer? Because ultimately, a client pays you for the special service that you render. Why should a person pay me, say Rs. 100 and pay other lawyers Rs. 50? It’s only because he believes that I can deliver something special. I go to an eminent cardiologist because I know he will do my bypass surgery better than the other doctor. You must have the aim of being able to deliver outstanding service, and the money will flow.

Q. (Raman Jokhakar): If you had to recommend four or five books to young professionals, what would they be?

A. Well, if it’s a lawyer, then I would recommend that they read the top biographies of lawyers like “Roses in December” and “My Own Boswell”. I would also recommend youngsters to read books on goal setting, on time management, and on strategy. I’m now reading a book called “The Crux”, it’s on strategic planning. How do you plan your life? It’s very important for professionals. Today, I would also recommend youngsters to see YouTube videos. You have people like Tony Robbins and Jack Canfield. You have got people like Ed Mylett and others. So, these self-help videos on YouTube are very useful, apart from books. To summarise, I would say that biographies and books on time management and goal setting are important, and one must read and implement them. And another thing which I keep telling people is something which I try to follow is: daily introspection. Every day before you sleep, just spend 10 minutes. How did you do that day? What could you have done better? And then visualise the next day also. That’s very, very important. We don’t introspect. We just watch some TV programs and sleep, but better to spend just 10 minutes on reflecting the day from morning to evening. What did I do? What could I have done better? This is very, very important.

Q. (Mayur Nayak): Thank you very much, Mr Datar, for sparing your valuable time and giving us many insights into many important and interesting issues. We are sure this interview will be a treat for our readers, especially for the special pages of BCAJ, as we enter the 75th year of the profession. Thank you, once again, for training Chartered Accountants and sharing your knowledge through lectures and mentoring youngsters.

(Arvind Datar): Thank you so much for this opportunity. My best wishes, particularly to young Chartered Accountants.