Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + NFRA Companies Law - 2023 (7) TMI NFRA This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 889 - NATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING AUTHORITYProfessional Misconduct - Acceptance of audit engagement disregarding Independence requirements - Tampering of Audit File and related lapses-SA 230, Audit Documentation - Lapses in audit relating to fraudulent transactions of Rs 3,769.61 crores with MACEL - Lapses in audit relating to fraudulent understatement of advance to MACEL by Rs 222.50 crores and failure to detect evergreening of loans - Lapses in audit relating to diversion of Rs 130.55 crores to M/s Classic Coffee Curing Works - Lapses in audit relating to capital advance given to Dark Forest Furniture Company Private Limited. (DFFCPL) - Failure to report non compliances with section 134(1) of the Act - Failure to comply with SA 700, Forming an Opinion and Reporting on Financial Statements - Failure to comply with SA 250, Consideration of Laws and Regulations in an Audit of Financial Statements - Failure to comply with SA 260, Communication with Those Charged With Governance (TCWG) & SA 265, Communicating deficiencies in Internal Control to Those Charged With Governance and Management - Failure to comply with SA 300, Planning an audit of Financial Statements - Lapses in constitution of Engagement Team (ET) and assigning responsibility among ET members (Additional Lapse on the part of the Audit Firm only). HELD THAT:- Section 132( 4) of the Companies Act, 2013 provides for penalties in a case where professional misconduct is proved. The seriousness with which proved cases of professional misconduct are viewed is evident from the fact that a minimum punishment is laid down by the law - Independent Auditors of Public Limited Companies serve a critical public function of enabling the users of Audited Financial Statements to take informed economic decisions. Quality audits bolster stakeholder' s confidence in the credibility of financial reporting. In the instant case, the Auditors, chose to preserve their professional relationship with the promoters of the auditee company, instead of discharging their statutory duty to protect public interest by exercising professional skepticism and questioning the promoters' dubious activities and transactions leading to diversion of shareholders and stakeholders' money on a large scale. Had they performed the required audit procedures with due professional skepticism, many of the dubious transactions would have been perhaps detected. But by failing to do so, they foreclosed this possibility causing immense harm to shareholders and stakeholders - when NFRA called for the Audit File for examination, the Auditors adopted delaying tactics and then tampered with the Audit File. This is extremely serious because it obstructs the NFRA's ability to protect public interest. This case underlines the need for all Auditors regardless of seniority to be aware of their individual responsibility to act honestly and with integrity in all areas of their work. These Auditors were required to ensure compliance with Standards on Auditing, Laws and Regulations to achieve the necessary audit quality and lend credibility to Financial Statements to facilitate its users. As detailed in this Order, substantial deficiencies in Audit, abdication of responsibility and inappropriate conclusions on the part of the Auditors establish their professional misconduct and lack of due diligence. Despite being qualified professionals, the Auditors have not adhered to the Standards and have thus not discharged the duty cast upon them. Considering the proved professional misconduct and keeping in mind the nature of violations, principles of proportionality and deterrence against future professional misconduct, in exercise of powers under Section 132(4)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013, following sanctions imposed: a) Imposition of a monetary penalty of Rs One Crore only upon Mis ASRMP & Co. In addition, Mis ASRMP & Co. is debarred for a period of two years from being appointed as an auditor or internal auditor or from undertaking any audit in respect of financial statements or internal audit of the functions and activities of any company or body corporate. b) Imposition of a monetary penalty of Rs Ten Lakhs only upon CA A. S. Sundaresha. In addition, CA A. S. Sundaresha is debarred for a period of five years from being appointed as an auditor or internal auditor or from undertaking any audit in respect of financial statements or internal audit of the functions and activities of any company or body corporate. c) Imposition of a monetary penalty of Rs Five Lakhs only upon CA Madhusudan U A. In addition, CA Madhusudan U A is debarred for a period of five years from being appointed as an auditor or internal auditor or from undertaking any audit in respect of financial statements or internal audit of the functions and activities of any company or body corporate. d) Imposition of a monetary penalty of Rs Five Lakhs only upon CA Pranaav G. Ambekar. In addition, CA Pranaav G. Ambekar is debarred for a period of five years from being appointed as an auditor or internal auditor or from undertaking any audit in respect of financial statements or internal audit of the functions and activities of any company or body corporate.
|