Facts of the Case
The National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA)
conducted an investigation into the professional conduct of CA Krishna Bihari
Chaturvedi in relation to the audit of five branches of Dewan Housing Finance
Corporation Limited (DHFL) for the Financial Year 2017-18.
DHFL was a housing finance company listed on the
National Stock Exchange (NSE) and Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE). NFRA initiated
an Audit Quality Review (AQR) of the statutory audit of DHFL after reports
concerning alleged large-scale financial irregularities and fraud involving the
company.
During the review, NFRA observed that 33 engagement
partners/branch auditors had signed Independent Branch Auditors’ Reports for
nearly 250 branches of DHFL. CA Krishna Bihari Chaturvedi had signed audit
reports relating to five branches.
NFRA found that the appointment of the branch
auditors had not been approved in the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of DHFL as
required under the Companies Act, 2013. Despite the absence of a legally valid
appointment, the audit firm accepted the engagement and issued branch audit
reports portraying itself as the statutory branch auditor.
NFRA further examined the branch audit work and found significant non-compliance with applicable Standards on Auditing and deficiencies in audit documentation.
Issues Involved
- Whether the branch audit appointment accepted by the auditor was
legally valid under the Companies Act, 2013.
- Whether the auditor complied with the applicable Standards on
Auditing while conducting the branch audit.
- Whether sufficient audit evidence and audit documentation were
maintained.
- Whether the conduct of the auditor amounted to professional
misconduct under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.
- Whether penalties and debarment were warranted under Section 132(4)
of the Companies Act, 2013.
Petitioner’s / NFRA’s Arguments
NFRA contended that:
- The appointment of the branch auditors was not approved by the AGM
of DHFL and therefore lacked legal validity.
- The audit firm accepted an invalid appointment and issued audit
reports as if it were the statutory branch auditor.
- The auditor failed to comply with the requirements prescribed under
the Standards on Auditing.
- Proper audit documentation was not maintained.
- Sufficient and appropriate audit evidence was not obtained before
expressing an audit opinion.
- The audit opinion issued lacked an adequate audit basis.
- The conduct demonstrated lack of due diligence and gross negligence
in the discharge of professional duties.
- Such actions constituted professional misconduct under the
Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 and attracted action under Section 132(4)
of the Companies Act, 2013.
Respondent’s Arguments
The order records that disciplinary proceedings
were initiated through Show Cause Notices dated 07.12.2022 and 17.01.2024.
NFRA noted non-cooperation during the proceedings,
including failure to reply to the Show Cause Notice within time and
non-acceptance of communications sent through post.
Court Order / Findings
NFRA held that:
- The appointment accepted for conducting the branch audit was
legally defective.
- The auditor issued audit reports representing himself as a
statutory branch auditor despite the invalid appointment.
- The audit work did not comply with the applicable Standards on
Auditing.
- Proper audit documentation was not maintained.
- The auditor failed to obtain sufficient information necessary for
expressing an audit opinion.
- The deficiencies resulted in a baseless audit opinion that was
ultimately relied upon by the statutory auditors of DHFL.
- The conduct amounted to failure to exercise due diligence and gross
negligence in professional duties.
- Professional misconduct stood established under the relevant
provisions of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.
NFRA concluded that CA Krishna Bihari Chaturvedi
committed professional misconduct within the meaning of Section 132(4) of the
Companies Act, 2013.
Important Clarification
NFRA clarified that:
- The appointment of the branch auditors itself did not satisfy the
legal requirements prescribed under the Companies Act, 2013.
- Even though the appointment was defective, NFRA independently
examined the audit work from the perspective of compliance with the
Standards on Auditing.
- The findings of professional misconduct were based not only on the
defective appointment but also on substantive audit failures and
deficiencies in audit execution.
- Branch auditors have an important responsibility in ensuring the
reliability and integrity of information that ultimately forms part of the
company’s financial statements.
Sections
Involved
Companies
Act, 2013
- Section 132
- Section 132(4)
- Section 139
Chartered
Accountants Act, 1949
- Section 22
- Clause 5 of Part I of the Second Schedule
- Clause 7 of Part I of the Second Schedule
- Clause 8 of Part I of the Second Schedule
Other
Relevant Provisions
- Standards on Auditing (SAs)
- Standards on Quality Control
- Code of Ethics applicable to Chartered Accountants
Penalty and Sanctions
Exercising powers under Section 132(4)(c) of the
Companies Act, 2013, NFRA ordered:
Monetary
Penalty
- ₹1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakh) upon CA Krishna Bihari Chaturvedi.
Debarment
- Debarment for a period of One Year from:
- Being appointed as an auditor;
- Being appointed as an internal auditor; or
- Undertaking any audit relating to financial statements or internal
audit of any company or body corporate.
The order was directed to become effective after 30 days from the date of issue.
Link
to download the order -https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3e2ad76f2326fbc6b56a45a56c59fafdb/uploads/2024/06/202406211115088640.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