Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2017 (2) TMI 77 - DELHI HIGH COURT

2017 (2) TMI 77 - DELHI HIGH COURT - TMI - Guilty of misconduct as defined under Clauses 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Para I of the 2nd Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 - false audit report - justification of audit report for the year 2001-02 in which the amount deposited by the complainant with the society was certified to be ₹ 3.88 lacs as against ₹ 6.88 lacs certified in the audit reports for the two previous years - Held that:- Having perused the reply we find not a word utter .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

3.88 lacs and not ₹ 6.88 lacs. - It has not been explained in the reply as to under what circumstances for the previous two years the respondent certified that the complainant had made a deposit totalling ₹ 6.88 lacs. - Under the circumstances we accept the finding returned by the Disciplinary Committee as approved by the Council. Keeping in view the gravity of the misconduct the proposed penalty is also accepted. - The reference is disposed of levying penalty of removal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ven today for the respondent. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Avtar Vinayak, the complainant and a member of Hilansh CGHS Cooperative Group Housing Society made a complaint against M/s.Anil Garg & Co. informing in the complaint that Anil Garg & Co. were the auditors of the society and had audited the account of the society for the financial years 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02, and 2002-03. The audit reports for the years 1999-00 and 2000-01 certified that ₹ 6.88 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

inant submitted a rejoinder on July 21, 2006. Respondent thereafter submitted his comments on the pleadings on October 31, 2006. 5. In accordance with Regulation 12(11) of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988 the papers were forwarded to the Council, which at its meeting held on February, 2008 opined that prima facie case to conduct an inquiry was made out. Matter was thereafter referred to the Disciplinary Committee of the Council. 6. The Disciplinary Committee heard the parties and subm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

difference of ₹ 3 lakhs the Respondent has taken three contradictory stands (a) Mr.Avtar Vinayak has wrongly represented his balance ₹ 6,88,000/- and to compensate this error, he issued two cheques Nos.120010 dt. 14.04.2000 for ₹ 1,00,000/- and Ch. No.581767 dt. 30.09.1999 for ₹ 2,50,000/- drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank, Anand Vihar, Delhi which were also bounced and never entered in the books of accounts during his tenure as Secretary, (b) to find out the correct positi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ta, Mr.Ashok Kumar Jawa and Mrs. Updesh Kaur. 14.1 As regards the stand taken by the respondent mentioned in point (a) above, the Committee observed, that the ledger account relied upon by the respondent duly reflects the credits and debits in respect of the two bounced cheques of ₹ 2.5 lakhs and ₹ 1 lakh each and at no stage in the ledger account, the balance of the Complainant is reflected as ₹ 6.88 lakhs. The Committee has not been able to understand as to how the respondent .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt on 20th June, 2005 reflects the differences on the accounts of eight members aggregating to ₹ 3,00,314/- (as against ₹ 3 lakhs) while the certificate dated 30th May, 2008 of M/s. M.M.Goyal & Co. certifies the difference of ₹ 1 lakh each in three account only. Even the names of three members in the second certificate do not tally with the names of members in the earlier certificate. Therefore, these two certificates also cannot be much credence. The Committee also observe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

om the members with respect to their balances with the Society, especially when the balance of a member was reduced by ₹ 3 lakhs and it was in the knowledge of the respondent that there was a dispute between old and new management of the society. According to the Committee, the circumstances warranted third party confirmation, which the respondent before issuing the audit report ought to have done as a prudent Chartered Accountant. 14.4 The Committee also observed that the respondent has f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e two previous years. 8. The first justification that two cheques in sum of ₹ 1 lac and ₹ 2.5 lacs had been returned dishonoured and were not entered in the books of accounts, the Committee brought out that if this be so the amount credited would have to be reduced by ₹ 3.5 lacs and not ₹ 3 lacs. The Committee highlighted that if this was so it was not understood as to how the respondent had certified the balance as of March 31, 1999 and March 31, 2000 in sum of ₹ 6 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version