NFRA penalizes auditor INR 3 lakh and 3-year debarment for professional misconduct under Section 132(4)

NFRA found the auditor guilty of professional misconduct under Section 132(4) of Companies Act 2013 and Section 22 of Chartered Accountants Act 1949. The auditor failed to conduct audit per Standards on Auditing, issued opinion without basis, failed to evaluate going concern assessment, revenue recognition, audit documentation, inventory evidence, and materiality determination. NFRA imposed INR 3,00,000 penalty and 3-year debarment from audit appointments, running concurrently with previous penalty order.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Lapses in the Audit
2. Articles of Charges of Professional Misconduct by the Auditor
3. Penalty & Sanctions

Summary:

1. Lapses in the Audit:
a. Failure to Demonstrate Sufficiency and Appropriateness of Audit Work:
The Engagement Partner (EP) failed to meet the relevant requirements of the Standards on Auditing (SA) in several significant areas, reflecting a serious lack of professional competence. These include audit planning, determining materiality, evaluation of the going concern assumption, assessment of Risk of Material Misstatement, and evaluating the audit results.

b. Failure to Perform Substantive and Analytical Procedures:
The EP failed to verify the revenue of Rs.29.16 crore related to the real estate segment and to evaluate the risk of fraud in revenue recognition in accordance with SA 240.

c. Failure to Analyze the Going Concern Assumption:
Despite significant indicators questioning the going concern assumption, the EP did not evaluate management's assessment of the entity's ability to continue as a going concern as required by SA 570.

d. Failure to Perform Physical Verification or Alternative Audit Procedure for Inventory:
The EP did not perform physical verification or alternative audit procedures for inventory amounting to Rs.102.69 crores, nor did he modify his opinion in the audit report in accordance with SA 501 and SA 705.

e. Failure to Demonstrate Compliance with SA 700 and SA 705:
The EP gave a Qualified Opinion despite being unable to comment on more than 50% of the total assets, which warranted a Disclaimer of Opinion.

f. Failure to Comply with Requirements Concerning the EQC Reviewer:
The EP failed to determine materiality, plan the audit, communicate with Those Charged with Governance (TCWG), and identify and assess risks of material misstatement.

2. Articles of Charges of Professional Misconduct by the Auditor:
a. Failure to Exercise Due Diligence and Gross Negligence:
The EP was found guilty of professional misconduct for failing to exercise due diligence and being grossly negligent in the conduct of professional duties.

b. Failure to Obtain Sufficient Information:
The EP failed to obtain sufficient information necessary for expressing an opinion, which is a significant professional misconduct.

c. Failure to Invite Attention to Material Departure:
The EP failed to highlight material departures from generally accepted audit procedures, which constitutes professional misconduct.

3. Penalty & Sanctions:
a. Monetary Penalty and Debarment:
The National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA) imposed a monetary penalty of Rs.3,00,000 on CA Pankaj Kumar. Additionally, CA Pankaj Kumar is debarred for 3 years from being appointed as an auditor or internal auditor or from undertaking any audit in respect of Financial Statements or internal audit of any company or body corporate. This debarment will run concurrently with a previous Penalty Order dated 21.04.2023.

b. Effective Date of Order:
This Order will become effective after 30 days from the date of issue.

---