Failure to conduct FY2021-22 and FY2022-23 annual audits breaches Reg.25(3) and Reg.24(2)(clauses 2,7); penalty under s.15EB and s.15J imposed

Board found the noticee failed to conduct annual audits for FYs 2021-22 and 2022-23 until prompted by SEBI, breaching Reg. 25(3) and clauses 2 and 7 of the Code under Reg. 24(2). The FY 2023-24 audit was timely. Remedial audit reports were later submitted (dated Aug 14, 2024) but delay rendered non-compliance established. The noticee was held liable for a monetary penalty under s.15EB of the SEBI Act, and a penalty was imposed pursuant to s.15J.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether the registrant as a research analyst failed to conduct annual audits for FYs 2021-22 and 2022-23 until SEBI sought related information, thereby breaching Regulation 25(3) of the RA Regulations and clauses 2 and 7 of the Code of Conduct (Regulation 24(2) Third Schedule)?

2. Whether the established violation, if any, attracts monetary penalty under Section 15EB of the SEBI Act?

3. If penalty is attracted, what is the appropriate quantum of monetary penalty after regard to the factors in Section 15J of the SEBI Act?

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue I: Failure to conduct annual audit for FYs 2021-22 and 2022-23 (Regulation 25(3); Code of Conduct clauses 2 & 7)

Legal framework: Regulation 25(3) mandates that a research analyst shall conduct an annual audit in respect of compliance with the RA Regulations by a member of ICAI or ICSI. Code of Conduct clause 2 requires diligence (due skill, care and diligence) and clause 7 requires compliance with all regulatory requirements.

Precedent treatment: Authorities and citations referenced by the registrant (orders relied upon by the registrant) were noted but found to emanate from different factual matrices and not directly applicable; the adjudicating authority accepted relevant passages emphasizing that severity of action depends on nature of irregularity.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Noticee admitted delay for FYs 2021-22 and 2022-23 and produced audit reports only after SEBI's request. The Noticee's explanation of personal hardship (mother's illness) was examined against temporal facts on record: hospital documents related to July 2024 did not excuse non-compliance for earlier financial years. The prompt completion of all three audits within days of SEBI's request undermined the explanation of continuing incapacity; the corrective action was characterized as remediation following regulatory prompting rather than evidence of prior compliance. By contrast, FY 2023-24 audit was shown to have been conducted and submitted before the statutory deadline and before SEBI's deadline, and was therefore acceptable.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - failure to conduct annual audits for FYs 2021-22 and 2022-23 until prompted by regulator constituted breach of Regulation 25(3) and Code clauses 2 and 7. Obiter - observations on the broader importance of audits for market integrity and investor confidence and the non-acceptance of personal-health explanation as justification for past-year non-compliance.

Conclusion: The registrant violated Regulation 25(3) and clauses 2 and 7 of the Code of Conduct in respect of FYs 2021-22 and 2022-23; the audit for FY 2023-24 was compliant and accepted.

Issue II: Attraction of monetary penalty under Section 15EB

Legal framework: Section 15EB prescribes monetary penalty for investment advisers or research analysts who fail to comply with Board regulations; minimum and maximum statutory ranges were noted.

Precedent treatment: Registrant's reliance on prior SAT/SEBI orders arguing that minor/technical defaults should not always attract penalty was considered; the adjudicating officer acknowledged the principle that sanction depends on nature of irregularity but held that factual differences prevented direct application of relied authorities.

Interpretation and reasoning: The adjudicator recognized annual audit as a material regulatory obligation that ensures transparency, detects compliance gaps and upholds investor confidence. Given the established failure to perform audits for two financial years until regulatory prompting, the non-compliance could not be dismissed as immaterial. The absence of persuasive mitigating factual justification or evidence of continual compliance meant the statutory predicate for penalty under Section 15EB was satisfied.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - breach of Regulation 25(3) by a research analyst attracts monetary penalty under Section 15EB where non-compliance is established. Obiter - commentary on the role of annual audits in market integrity and investor protection reiterates why such defaults are not trivial.

Conclusion: The violation attracts monetary penalty under Section 15EB of the SEBI Act.

Issue III: Quantum of penalty under Section 15EB having regard to Section 15J factors

Legal framework: Section 15EB prescribes the penal range; Section 15J lists factors to consider when adjudging quantum (disproportionate gain/unfair advantage, loss caused to investors, repetitiveness of default).

Precedent treatment: Registrant's submissions requesting nominal treatment as a venial breach and citing case-law were considered but rejected on factual dissimilarity and insufficiency of mitigation.

Interpretation and reasoning: Record lacked quantification of disproportionate gain or investor loss and did not demonstrate repetitiveness of default beyond the two financial years in issue. Mitigating considerations accepted: registrant conducted remedial audits promptly on SEBI's request and undertook future compliance. Balancing the absence of quantifiable market harm, the remedial steps, and the statutory need to deter non-compliance, the adjudicator concluded a modest penalty within the statutory floor was appropriate.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where Section 15J factors do not show quantifiable gain, investor loss or repetitive default, but non-compliance is established, a penalty at the lower end of the statutory range is justified, taking remedial conduct into account. Obiter - guidance that remedial action post-detection is a relevant mitigating factor but does not negate liability.

Conclusion: A monetary penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 (one lakh) under Section 15EB was imposed as commensurate with the lapses, after considering absence of quantifiable gain/loss, non-repetitive nature on record, and the registrant's remedial steps and undertakings.

Cross-references and ancillary points

1. The adjudicating authority accepted the FY 2023-24 audit as compliant (see Issue I) and imposed penalty only for FYs 2021-22 and 2022-23 breaches (see Issues II & III).

2. Mitigatory submissions (personal hardship, remedial audit conduct, commitment to future compliance) were taken into account while quantifying penalty but were insufficient to negate liability.

3. Absence of evidence quantifying disproportionate gain or investor loss limited the application of Section 15J(a) and (b); absence of documented repetition limited application of Section 15J(c).

---