https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332397 In a concurrent audit, absence of knowledge of fraudulent concealment and no proof of mala fide intent defeated charges of professional misconduct based on non-disclosure under clauses (5) and (6) of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, and those findings were declined. However, the auditor was still found negligent because the audit required greater care and caution, particularly for newly opened and unusual transactions, and routine cross-checking should have revealed the entries. That failure constituted professional misconduct under clause (7), and severe reprimand was imposed under Section 21(6)(c) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. en-us Thu, 11 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:39:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332397 In a concurrent audit, absence of knowledge of fraudulent concealment and no proof of mala fide intent defeated charges of professional misconduct based on non-disclosure under clauses (5) and (6) of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, and those findings were declined. However, the auditor was still found negligent because the audit required greater care and caution, particularly for newly opened and unusual transactions, and routine cross-checking should have revealed the entries. That failure constituted professional misconduct under clause (7), and severe reprimand was imposed under Section 21(6)(c) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 11 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332397