Page 367 - CA Final PARAM Digital Book.

• the second office is located in the same premises, in which the first office is located; or
• the second office is located in the same city, in which the first office is located; or
• the second office is located within a distance of 50 kms from the municipal limits of a city,
in which the first office is located.

Part III – Case Discussion
➢ Since the second office is situated beyond 50 kms of municipal limits of Mumbai city which is
approximately 80 kilometres away from his existing office. For running the new office, he employed
three retired Income-tax Officers whereas he should have created a separate charge of a member
of the Institute.

Part IV – Conclusion
➢ Thus, he would be liable for committing a professional misconduct.
Author’s Note
# Mistake point
• Here it is written that another office is opened in a suburb of Mumbai which is approximately 80
kilometres away from his “existing office”.
As per section 27 of the CA Act ,1949 - Distance from existing office is of no importance. What is
important is distance from “Municipal Limits” in which existing office is situated.
Here institute has assumed the distance from existing office is same as distance from Municipal
limits. (Also refer chart in previous question)

• In second question of “Chennai city” kms are not specified. Further word suburbs is not defined
in law. It simply means residential area either on outskirts of city or after city limit. So in this
question we don’t know exact distance between city limits and office.
So in this question we should give conditional answer after explaining requirements of Sec 27
and exemptions.
If its within 50 km then no need of separate CA in charge, so not violating sec 27
if it’s beyond 50km then separate CA in charge required, so violating sec 27

QNO Sec 27 --Sec 27 (Separate branch In charge) No Intimation Old Course – (M18E)
659.000 TITANIUM CNO – PE.880
M & Co., a sole proprietary Chartered Accountant firm in practice with an office in a busy belt of a city,
had great difficulty in regularly attending to the consultancy needs of his clients who are mostly located
in an industrial cluster in a nearby outskirt which is situated at a distance of 26 kms from the office of
the firm. To mitigate the difficulty and to have ease of business, a facilitation centre was opened in the
industrial cluster. The proprietor managed both the office and the facilitation centre, by himself. No
intimation was made to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. Examine whether there is
any professional misconduct in this respect
Answer Part I -- Relevant Standards & Laws
▪ Section 27 of Chapter VII of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949
Part II -- Requirements of Relevant Standards & Laws
➢ As per section 27 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 if a chartered accountant in practice has
more than one office in India, each one of these offices should be in the separate charge of a
member of the Institute. However, a member can be in charge of two offices if the second office is
located in the same premises or in the same city, in which the first office is located; or the second
office is located within a distance of 50 Kilometres from the municipal limits of a city, in which the
first office is located.
Part III – Case Discussion
➢ In the given case, M & Co., a sole proprietary Chartered Accountant firm in practice with an office in
a busy belt of a city and had great difficulty in regularly attending to the consultancy needs of his
clients. Therefore, a facilitation centre was opened in the industrial cluster and the proprietor is
managing both the office and facilitation centre.
Part IV – Conclusion
www.auditguru.in PARAM 19.9 | P a g e