NFRA finds auditor guilty of professional misconduct, imposes Rs. 2 lakh penalty and two-year debarment under Section 132(4)(c)

NFRA found the auditor guilty of professional misconduct under clauses 5-9 of Part I of the Second Schedule of the Chartered Accountant Act, 1949. The auditor failed to conduct proper audit procedures including planning, materiality assessment, related party transaction evaluation, and timely audit file assembly. The auditor also failed to report material non-compliances and misstatements in financial statements. NFRA imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 and debarred the auditor and audit firm for two years from conducting audits under Section 132(4)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Failure to plan the audit and understand the entity and its environment.
2. Failure to evaluate the Internal Audit Function.
3. Failure to determine Materiality and Performance Materiality.
4. Failure to report non-provisioning in respect of the Expected Credit Loss.
5. No evaluation of the arm's length pricing for Related Party Transactions.
6. Failure to assemble the Audit File within 60 days of audit completion.
7. Failure to report non-charging of depreciation of leasehold land and plant & machinery.
8. Failure to obtain sufficient and appropriate audit evidence through external confirmations.
9. Failure to determine the appointment of Engagement Quality Control Reviewer (EQCR).
10. Articles of Charges of Professional Misconduct by the Engagement Partner (EP).
11. Penalty and Sanctions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Failure to Plan the Audit and Understand the Entity and Its Environment:
The auditor failed to comply with SA 300 and SA 315 by not planning the audit or understanding the nature of the entity and its environment. There was no documentation of an audit strategy or plan, and the auditor admitted to this lack of documentation, confirming the charge.

2. Failure to Evaluate the Internal Audit Function:
The auditor did not evaluate the internal audit function as required by SA 610. Despite the company having internal auditors, the EP incorrectly stated that there was no internal auditor for the relevant financial years, confirming the charge.

3. Failure to Determine Materiality and Performance Materiality:
The auditor did not determine materiality and performance materiality as required by SA 320. The absence of documentation regarding materiality was admitted by the EP, establishing the charge.

4. Failure to Report Non-Provisioning in Respect of the Expected Credit Loss:
The auditor failed to report the non-provisioning of Expected Credit Loss (ECL) on trade receivables, which was a significant oversight given the large discrepancies between trade receivables and sales. The EP admitted to the lack of documentation on ECL provisioning, confirming the charge.

5. No Evaluation of the Arm's Length Pricing for Related Party Transactions:
The auditor did not evaluate whether related party transactions were conducted at arm's length, as required by the Companies Act, 2013. The EP failed to document or report these transactions, confirming the charge.

6. Failure to Assemble the Audit File Within 60 Days of Audit Completion:
The auditor did not compile the audit file within the required 60 days post-audit completion, as mandated by SA 230 and SQC1. The delay and lack of completeness of the audit file were evident, confirming the charge.

7. Failure to Report Non-Charging of Depreciation of Leasehold Land and Plant & Machinery:
The auditor did not report the non-charging of depreciation on leasehold land and plant & machinery, contrary to Ind AS 116 and Ind AS 16. The EP's failure to report this in the audit report confirms the charge.

8. Failure to Obtain Sufficient and Appropriate Audit Evidence Through External Confirmations:
The auditor failed to obtain external confirmations for significant balances, relying solely on management representations, which is against SA 505. The absence of alternative procedures or documentation confirms the charge.

9. Failure to Determine the Appointment of Engagement Quality Control Reviewer (EQCR):
The auditor did not appoint an EQCR for the audit of the listed company, violating SA 220. The lack of appointment and documentation confirms the charge.

10. Articles of Charges of Professional Misconduct by the Engagement Partner (EP):
The EP was found guilty of multiple counts of professional misconduct under the Chartered Accountant Act, 1949, including failure to disclose material facts, report material misstatements, exercise due diligence, and obtain sufficient information.

11. Penalty and Sanctions:
The EP was imposed a monetary penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 and debarred for two years from being appointed as an auditor or internal auditor. The order will take effect 30 days from issuance, reflecting the seriousness of the professional misconduct.

---