TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the newly appointed auditor was guilty of professional misconduct for not obtaining a no-objection from the petitioner and for allegedly not communicating with the previous auditor before accepting the assignment.
Analysis: Clause (8) of Part I of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 deems professional misconduct where a chartered accountant accepts a position as auditor previously held by another chartered accountant without first communicating with that auditor in writing. On the facts, the petitioner was not the auditor who had last audited the company's accounts. The accounts for the relevant preceding years had been audited by another firm, and correspondence was shown to have been addressed to that firm before acceptance of the assignment. The requirement is communication with the previous auditor, not procurement of a no-objection certificate from a former auditor who was not the last incumbent.
Conclusion: The allegation of professional misconduct was not made out, and the finding exonerating the auditor was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the disciplinary order failed because the statutory requirement of prior written communication had been complied with in substance, and no misconduct was established.
Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of Clause (8) of Part I of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, the obligation is to communicate in writing with the actual previous auditor before accepting the audit, and not to obtain a no-objection certificate from a person who was not the previous auditor.
TaxTMI 
