Facts of the Case

  1. DHFL was a listed public company engaged in housing finance activities and was listed on both BSE and NSE.
  2. During January 2019, media reports alleged diversion of public funds amounting to approximately ₹31,000 crore by DHFL promoters.
  3. Pursuant to these allegations, NFRA initiated an investigation into the statutory audit of DHFL for FY 2017-18.
  4. The statutory audit of DHFL for FY 2017-18 was conducted by Chaturvedi & Shah LLP.
  5. CA Amit Vinay Chaturvedi acted as the Engagement Quality Control Review Partner in the audit engagement.
  6. During its Audit Quality Review process, NFRA observed several deficiencies indicating non-compliance with Standards on Auditing and Quality Control requirements.
  7. NFRA issued a Show Cause Notice alleging professional misconduct and violation of statutory auditing requirements.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether NFRA possessed jurisdiction under Section 132(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 to investigate and take action against the EQCR Partner.
  2. Whether the EQCR Partner failed to perform an objective evaluation of significant judgments made by the Engagement Team before issuance of the audit report.
  3. Whether the EQCR Partner failed to comply with the documentation requirements prescribed under SA 220 and SQC-1.
  4. Whether failure to identify, evaluate and report significant audit deficiencies amounted to professional misconduct.
  5. Whether inadequate review of audit evidence and audit documentation constituted gross negligence and professional misconduct under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

Petitioner’s / Noticee’s Arguments

The EQCR Partner raised the following submissions:

Lack of Jurisdiction

  • NFRA lacked jurisdiction over past audits conducted before the operationalization of NFRA.
  • Proceedings could not be initiated retrospectively.

Compliance with Documentation Requirements

  • SA 220 and SQC-1 allegedly did not prescribe specific formats of documentation for EQCR review.
  • Existing checklists and records were sufficient evidence of review.

Role of EQCR Partner

  • The EQCR Partner contended that review obligations applied only to “audits” and not separately to the EQCR function.
  • He relied upon review checklists and maintained that documentation requirements applicable to auditors could not automatically be extended to EQCR Partners.

Procedural Objections

  • Proceedings should remain stayed because related matters were pending before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).

 

Respondent’s Arguments (NFRA)

NFRA argued that:

  1. Section 132(4) grants exclusive authority to NFRA to investigate professional misconduct involving Chartered Accountants and audit firms.
  2. The EQCR Partner plays a critical quality control role and is required to perform an independent and objective evaluation before issuance of the audit report.
  3. Mandatory requirements under SA 220, SA 230 and SQC-1 require adequate documentation demonstrating the review performed.
  4. The EQCR Partner failed to evaluate significant audit judgments, risk assessments and conclusions reached by the Engagement Team.
  5. The Audit File lacked sufficient evidence demonstrating meaningful EQCR review.
  6. The EQCR Partner failed to identify serious deficiencies relating to:
    • Branch audits,
    • Internal Financial Controls,
    • Related Party Transactions,
    • Significant investments and financial statement assertions,
    • Risk of material misstatement.
  7. Such failures constituted gross negligence and professional misconduct under the Companies Act, 2013 and the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

 

Court Findings / NFRA Findings

NFRA rejected all major defenses raised by the EQCR Partner and recorded the following findings:

1. Jurisdiction Validly Exercised

NFRA held that Section 132(4) grants exclusive jurisdiction to investigate professional misconduct committed by Chartered Accountants and audit firms.

The Authority clarified that its jurisdiction extends to misconduct discovered after the establishment of NFRA even where the underlying audit engagement relates to a prior period.

2. Failure to Perform Objective Evaluation

The EQCR Partner failed to perform the mandatory objective evaluation required under SA 220 before the audit report was issued.

There was insufficient evidence showing independent assessment of significant judgments and audit conclusions.

3. Inadequate Documentation

The Audit File lacked documentation demonstrating meaningful review procedures.

NFRA held that mere checklists cannot substitute evidence of actual review and professional evaluation.

4. Failure to Identify Material Audit Deficiencies

The EQCR Partner failed to identify serious deficiencies in areas such as:

  • Branch audit compliance.
  • Internal Financial Controls.
  • Related Party Transactions.
  • Investments and borrowings.
  • Risk assessment procedures.
  • Material misstatement evaluation.

5. Gross Negligence Established

NFRA concluded that the EQCR Partner failed to exercise due diligence and professional skepticism expected from a quality review partner.

Such conduct amounted to gross negligence and professional misconduct.

 

Important Clarifications

EQCR Responsibility is Independent and Substantive

NFRA clarified that the EQCR function is not a mere formality. An EQCR Partner must independently evaluate significant judgments, conclusions and audit evidence before issuance of the audit report.

Checklists Alone are Insufficient

Completion of standard checklists does not establish compliance unless supported by documentary evidence demonstrating actual review and professional judgment.

Documentation is Mandatory

Where the review process is not documented, it may be presumed that the required procedures were not adequately performed.

NFRA’s Exclusive Jurisdiction

NFRA reiterated that it has exclusive authority to investigate professional misconduct of Chartered Accountants and audit firms under Section 132(4) of the Companies Act, 2013.

 

Final Order

NFRA held CA Amit Vinay Chaturvedi guilty of professional misconduct.

The Authority imposed the following sanctions:

Monetary Penalty

  • Penalty of ₹5,00,000 (Rupees Five Lakh).

Debarment

  • Debarred for five years from being appointed as an auditor or internal auditor.
  • Prohibited from undertaking any audit in respect of financial statements or internal audit functions of any company or body corporate during the debarment period.

Sections Involved

Companies Act, 2013

  • Section 132(4)
  • Section 132(4)(c)
  • Section 132(4)(d)
  • Section 143
  • Section 143(10)
  • Section 143(11)

Chartered Accountants Act, 1949

Part I of the Second Schedule

  • Clause (5)
  • Clause (6)
  • Clause (7)

Standards on Auditing / Quality Control

  • SA 220 – Quality Control for an Audit of Financial Statements
  • SA 230 – Audit Documentation
  • SA 315 – Identifying and Assessing Risks of Material Misstatement
  • SA 330 – Auditor’s Responses to Assessed Risks
  • SQC-1 – Standard on Quality Control

Link to download the order -https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3e2ad76f2326fbc6b56a45a56c59fafdb/uploads/2023/12/202312061561878508.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.