Facts of the Case

DHFL, a listed housing finance company, was allegedly involved in large-scale financial irregularities and fraud. NFRA initiated a suo motu Audit Quality Review concerning the statutory audit of DHFL for FY 2017-18. During the review, NFRA examined branch audits conducted by several engagement partners, including CA Akash Goel, who audited eight DHFL branches.

The investigation revealed that the appointment of CA Akash Goel as branch auditor was not approved by shareholders as required under the Companies Act, 2013. Despite the absence of a legally valid appointment, he accepted the audit assignment and issued Independent Branch Auditor’s Reports.

NFRA further found significant deficiencies in audit planning, risk assessment, audit documentation, materiality assessment, audit evidence collection, and reporting standards. The audit files lacked adequate documentation to demonstrate compliance with the Standards on Auditing and failed to establish the basis for the audit opinion issued by the auditor.

 

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the auditor accepted the audit assignment without verifying compliance with statutory requirements relating to appointment under Section 139 of the Companies Act, 2013.
  2. Whether the auditor failed to exercise due diligence and professional skepticism while accepting and conducting the audit engagement.
  3. Whether the auditor failed to obtain sufficient and appropriate audit evidence necessary for expressing an audit opinion.
  4. Whether the audit documentation maintained by the auditor complied with the mandatory requirements prescribed under the Standards on Auditing.
  5. Whether issuance of an unmodified audit opinion despite material deficiencies and unavailable information amounted to professional misconduct.
  6. Whether violations of auditing standards and statutory provisions justified disciplinary action under Section 132(4) of the Companies Act, 2013.

 

Petitioner’s Arguments (CA Akash Goel)

  • The auditor contended that appointment of branch auditors was the responsibility of the company management and any procedural irregularity in appointment could not be attributed to him.
  • He argued that the appointment letter specified the scope and objectives of the audit engagement and therefore compliance with SA 210 had been achieved.
  • He maintained that audit procedures were carried out in accordance with the prescribed scope and professional judgment was exercised during the audit.
  • He submitted that non-availability of certain documents was due to management’s failure to provide records and was beyond his control.
  • He asserted that audit observations regarding unavailable documents had been disclosed in annexures to the audit report and therefore there was no violation of auditing standards.
  • He denied allegations relating to insufficient audit documentation and non-compliance with Standards on Auditing.

 

Respondent’s Arguments (NFRA)

  • NFRA argued that the auditor was legally obligated to verify whether the requirements of Sections 139 and 143 of the Companies Act had been complied with before accepting the engagement.
  • Acceptance of an appointment letter issued without approval of the competent authority constituted professional misconduct.
  • The audit file lacked essential documentation regarding audit planning, risk assessment, materiality determination, testing procedures, audit evidence, internal controls, and review processes.
  • The auditor failed to maintain records demonstrating the nature, timing, extent, and results of audit procedures as required under SA 230.
  • Despite acknowledging material gaps in information and documentation, the auditor issued an unmodified opinion, contrary to the requirements of SA 700.
  • Such conduct reflected absence of due diligence, professional skepticism, and adherence to auditing standards.

Court / NFRA Findings

NFRA held that CA Akash Goel accepted an audit assignment without ensuring compliance with mandatory statutory provisions governing auditor appointments. The authority observed that the appointment was not made by the competent authority under the Companies Act, rendering the engagement legally defective.

NFRA further found extensive non-compliance with multiple Standards on Auditing, including deficiencies relating to audit engagement terms, audit documentation, risk assessment, materiality, audit evidence, analytical procedures, sampling, written representations, and reporting standards.

The audit file failed to contain sufficient documentation demonstrating that audit procedures had actually been performed. NFRA concluded that the auditor's opinion was unsupported by adequate audit evidence and was therefore unreliable.

The authority held that the auditor had demonstrated gross negligence, lack of due diligence, and failure to obtain sufficient information necessary for expressing an audit opinion, thereby committing professional misconduct under the Companies Act, 2013 and the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

 

Important Clarifications

1. Auditor Must Verify Valid Appointment

An auditor cannot merely rely on a company’s appointment letter. The auditor must independently verify compliance with statutory provisions governing appointment.

2. Audit Documentation Is Mandatory

Oral explanations cannot substitute proper audit documentation. The audit file itself must demonstrate compliance with auditing standards.

3. Unsupported Audit Opinions Attract Liability

Where sufficient and appropriate audit evidence is unavailable, an auditor cannot issue an unmodified opinion.

4. Professional Skepticism Is Essential

Auditors must exercise independent judgment and professional skepticism throughout the engagement.

5. Responsibility Cannot Be Shifted to Management

Failure by management to comply with statutory requirements does not absolve the auditor from performing his own legal and professional obligations.

 

Final Order / Sanctions

NFRA concluded that professional misconduct stood established and exercised powers under Section 132(4)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013.

Penalties Imposed

  • Monetary penalty of ₹1,00,000 (One Lakh Rupees).
  • Debarment of one year from:
    • Being appointed as an auditor;
    • Being appointed as an internal auditor; and
    • Undertaking audits of financial statements or internal audits of any company or body corporate.

The order was directed to become effective after thirty days from the date of issuance.

Sections Involved

Companies Act, 2013

  • Section 132(4)
  • Section 139
  • Section 140
  • Section 143(8)

Chartered Accountants Act, 1949

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

Standards on Auditing (SAs)

  • SA 200 – Overall Objectives of the Independent Auditor
  • SA 210 – Agreeing the Terms of Audit Engagements
  • SA 230 – Audit Documentation
  • SA 300 – Planning an Audit
  • SA 315 – Identifying and Assessing Risks of Material Misstatement
  • SA 320 – Materiality in Planning and Performing an Audit
  • SA 330 – Auditor’s Responses to Assessed Risks
  • SA 450 – Evaluation of Misstatements
  • SA 500 – Audit Evidence
  • SA 510 – Initial Audit Engagements – Opening Balances
  • SA 520 – Analytical Procedures
  • SA 530 – Audit Sampling
  • SA 580 – Written Representations

SA 700 – Forming an Opinion and Reporting on Financial Statements

Link to download the order -https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3e2ad76f2326fbc6b56a45a56c59fafdb/uploads/2023/04/2023040161.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.