Facts of the Case

The National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA) initiated proceedings against CA Naresh Kumar, Engagement Partner (EP) of M/s Oswal Sunil & Company, the Joint Statutory Auditor of SRS Ltd. for the financial year 2017-18. The proceedings arose from information received from the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) concerning alleged fraud and accounting irregularities in SRS Ltd.

SRS Ltd. had undergone Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), and investigations revealed significant financial irregularities, including questionable recoverability of trade receivables, improper recognition of assets, inventory-related issues, going concern uncertainties, and other matters affecting the true and fair view of the financial statements.

NFRA examined the audit conducted by the Engagement Partner and found several deficiencies in audit planning, documentation, fraud risk assessment, evaluation of going concern assumptions, verification procedures, reporting obligations, and compliance with Standards on Auditing (SAs). Consequently, NFRA issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) alleging professional misconduct under the Companies Act, 2013 and the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the auditor failed to exercise due professional care, professional skepticism, and due diligence while conducting the statutory audit of SRS Ltd.
  2. Whether the auditor failed to properly evaluate the Going Concern assumption in light of the company’s deteriorating financial condition.
  3. Whether there was non-compliance with Standards on Auditing relating to audit documentation, fraud risk assessment, audit planning, materiality assessment, and joint audit responsibilities.
  4. Whether the auditor failed to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence regarding inventory, property, plant and equipment, and impairment of investments.
  5. Whether the auditor failed to report material non-compliances and misstatements in the financial statements.
  6. Whether such failures amounted to professional misconduct under Section 132(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 and the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

Petitioner’s Arguments (CA Naresh Kumar)

The Engagement Partner contended that:

  • The audit was conducted in accordance with applicable Standards on Auditing.
  • Management had continued operations and therefore the Going Concern assumption was considered appropriate.
  • Audit procedures regarding inventory, receivables, and fraud risk assessment had been performed.
  • Audit work papers and supporting documentation existed and were maintained.
  • Necessary planning and materiality assessments were carried out during the audit.
  • Impairment testing of investments was not considered necessary based on the facts available at the relevant time.
  • Certain reporting issues had already been addressed through qualifications in the audit report.
  • The Engagement Quality Control Review (EQCR) process had been followed.
  • The auditor had complied with all applicable professional standards in letter and spirit.

Respondent’s Arguments (NFRA)

NFRA argued that:

  • The auditor ignored multiple indicators casting significant doubt on the Going Concern status of SRS Ltd.
  • The audit file lacked adequate documentation required under SA 230.
  • Fraud risk assessment procedures under SA 240 were either not performed or inadequately documented.
  • The auditor failed to exercise professional skepticism despite significant warning signs, including sharp inventory declines, large receivable balances, defaults in borrowings, and insolvency proceedings.
  • Audit planning and determination of materiality under SA 300 and SA 320 were deficient.
  • Joint audit responsibilities under SA 299 were not properly discharged.
  • The auditor failed to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence regarding impairment of investments, inventory verification, and property, plant and equipment.
  • Material departures from accounting and auditing standards were not appropriately reported.
  • The conduct demonstrated gross negligence and serious professional misconduct.

Court Order / Findings

NFRA held that the Engagement Partner failed to perform the audit with the degree of professional competence, skepticism, and diligence expected from a statutory auditor.

The Authority found significant violations relating to:

  • Going Concern assessment (SA 570).
  • Audit Documentation (SA 230).
  • Engagement Quality Control Review requirements (SA 220).
  • Auditor’s responsibilities relating to fraud (SA 240).
  • Responsibilities of Joint Auditors (SA 299).
  • Audit Planning and Materiality (SA 300 and SA 320).
  • Audit Evidence and Verification Procedures (SA 500).
  • Identification and assessment of risks of material misstatement (SA 315).
  • Responses to assessed risks (SA 330).
  • Reporting failures regarding impairment of investments under Ind AS 36.
  • Failure to report non-compliance with Section 143(3)(i) of the Companies Act, 2013.

NFRA concluded that the auditor’s conduct constituted professional misconduct under Section 132(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 and the relevant provisions of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

Important Clarifications

1. Going Concern Assessment

NFRA clarified that auditors cannot merely rely on management representations when significant indicators exist that cast doubt on an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern. Independent evaluation and sufficient audit evidence are mandatory.

2. Audit Documentation

Audit documentation must be complete, contemporaneous, and capable of demonstrating the nature, timing, extent, and conclusions of audit procedures performed. Deficient documentation may itself indicate inadequate audit performance.

3. Professional Skepticism

The order reiterates that auditors are required to maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit engagement, particularly when fraud indicators or unusual transactions are present.

4. Fraud Risk Responsibilities

Compliance with SA 240 requires auditors to actively identify, assess, and respond to fraud risks. Mere management explanations cannot substitute for audit evidence.

5. Joint Audit Responsibility

Joint auditors remain responsible for compliance with professional standards concerning areas allocated to them and must properly document work allocation and execution.

6. Substance over Form

The order emphasizes that mere existence of audit files or checklists does not establish compliance unless audit procedures are actually performed and supported by sufficient evidence.

 

Sections Involved

Companies Act, 2013

  • Section 132(4)
  • Section 132(4)(c)
  • Section 143(3)(i)

Chartered Accountants Act, 1949

  • Section 22
  • Part I of Second Schedule
    • Clause 5
    • Clause 6
    • Clause 7
    • Clause 8
    • Clause 9

Standards on Auditing (SAs)

  • SA 220 – Quality Control for an Audit
  • SA 230 – Audit Documentation
  • SA 240 – Auditor’s Responsibilities Relating to Fraud
  • SA 299 – Responsibility of Joint Auditors
  • SA 300 – Planning an Audit
  • SA 315 – Identifying and Assessing Risks
  • SA 320 – Materiality in Planning and Performing an Audit
  • SA 330 – Auditor’s Responses to Assessed Risks
  • SA 500 – Audit Evidence
  • SA 570 – Going Concern

Accounting Standards

  • Ind AS 36 – Impairment of Assets

 

Penalty Imposed

NFRA imposed the following sanctions on CA Naresh Kumar:

  • Monetary penalty of ₹3,00,000.
  • Debarment for three years from being appointed as an auditor or internal auditor or from undertaking any audit relating to financial statements or internal audit functions of any company or body corporate.

Link to download the order -https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3e2ad76f2326fbc6b56a45a56c59fafdb/uploads/2023/04/2023042288.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.