Facts of the
Case
The complainant, CA Jai Kumar Mansharamani, partner
of M/s Khandelwal Khare & Associates, served as statutory auditor of M/s
Ridhima Overseas Private Limited from 30.09.2014. Due to persistent
non-cooperation by the company during the statutory audit for FY 2017–18, the
complainant resigned on 18.10.2018 and subsequently filed Form ADT-3 with the
Registrar of Companies on 30.03.2019. Despite resignation, the company did not
clear the outstanding audit dues of the complainant firm.
Thereafter, the complainant received communication
from another audit firm seeking No Objection Certificate. However, the new
auditors failed to furnish proper firm credentials or appointment letters
despite repeated requests. In March 2020, upon inspection of MCA records, the
complainant discovered that the financial statements for FY 2017–18 and FY
2018–19 had been signed by the respondent, CA Dinesh Kumar Ahuja, on 31.10.2018
and 07.09.2019 respectively, without obtaining prior written communication or
NOC from the complainant.
Issues
Involved
Whether the respondent Chartered Accountant was
guilty of professional misconduct under Item (8) of Part I of the First
Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 for accepting statutory audit
assignments without prior written communication with the previous auditor and
without documented proof of such communication.
Petitioner’s
Arguments
The complainant contended that the respondent
accepted statutory audit for FYs 2017–18 and 2018–19 without prior written
communication, despite the complainant continuing as auditor during the
relevant period and having outstanding audit fees. It was submitted that
multiple emails were sent to the respondent highlighting objections and unpaid
dues, which remained unanswered. The complainant further alleged that the
respondent backdated audit reports, resulting in delayed statutory filings.
Respondent’s
Arguments
The respondent did not appear during the final
hearing before the Board. However, it was claimed during the investigation
stage that a letter seeking No Objection Certificate had been sent to the
complainant. No documentary evidence such as acknowledgment, delivery report,
or registered post receipt was produced to establish proof of delivery of such
communication.
Court Order
/ Findings
The Board of Discipline examined the material on
record, including MCA filings, correspondence, and the Prima Facie Opinion of
the Director (Discipline). The Board noted that Item (8) of Part I mandates
mandatory prior written communication with the outgoing auditor before
accepting an audit assignment.
The Board observed that although the respondent
claimed to have sent a letter seeking NOC, no verifiable proof of delivery was
placed on record. The Board relied on the Code of Ethics, 2009, which requires
the incoming auditor to retain positive evidence of delivery, preferably
through registered post with acknowledgment due or hand delivery with written
acknowledgment. The absence of such evidence conclusively established
non-compliance.
The Board further noted that allegations relating
to non-payment of audit fees were not substantiated by documentary evidence and
were therefore rightly dropped at the prima facie stage. The sole charge under
Item (8) of Part I was found to be proved.
Important
Clarification
The Board clarified that prior written
communication with the outgoing auditor must be demonstrable through positive
and verifiable evidence of delivery. Mere assertion of having sent a letter,
without proof of receipt, does not satisfy the mandatory ethical requirement
under Item (8) of Part I of the First Schedule.
Final
Outcome
The Board of Discipline, ICAI, held that CA
Dinesh Kumar Ahuja was GUILTY of Professional Misconduct under Item (8) of
Part I of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. In
exercise of powers under Section 21A(3), the Board imposed a fine of ₹25,000,
by order dated 10.01.2025, pursuant to its findings dated 14.12.2024.
Source Link - https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1768894478_CAJaiKumarMansharamanivs.CADineshKumarAhujaBoardofDisciplineICAI.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