Page 368 - CA Final PARAM Digital Book.

➢ Though distance between his office and facilitation center i.e. sort of second office is within
prescribed range i.e. 50 kilometers but M& Co., will be liable for misconduct as prescribed
intimation about facilitation centre and main office should be sent to the Institute of
Chartered Accountants of India.
Author’s Note
# Mistake point
Here it is written that another office is opened in a suburb of Mumbai which is approximately 26
kilometres away from his “existing office”.
As per section 27 of the CA Act ,1949 –
1. 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. For this point is not guilty.
2. Opening and closing of branch are required to be informed to the institute as per section
27(2) of the CA Act ,1949 and it should be informed within 1 month as per regulation 189. But
for this point he is guilty. Further many students may miss this point, so be careful.
(Also refer chart in previous question)

QNO Sec 27 (Separate branch In charge) Same Board at Residence Old Course – (N07E, PM17 N21M, N22M)
660.000 TITANIUM CNO – PE.880 New Course – (SM23)
XY & Co., a firm of Chartered Accountant having 2 partners X & Y, one in charge of Head Office and another
in charge of Branch at a distance of 80 kms, puts up a name-board of the firm in both premises and also
in their respective residences.
Answer Part I -- Relevant Standards & Laws
▪ Section 27 of Chapter VII of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949

Part II -- Requirements of Relevant Standards & Laws
▪ The council of the Institute has decided that with regard to the use of the name-board, there will be
no bar to the putting up of a name-board in the place of residence of a member with the designation
of chartered accountant, provided, it is a name-plate or board of an individual member and not of
the firm.
Part III – Case Discussion
▪ In the given case, partners of XY & Co., put up a name board of the firm in both offices and also in
their respective residences. Distance given in the question is not relevant.

Part IV– Conclusion
➢ Thus, the chartered accountants are guilty of misconduct as name board of the firm cannot be
used in place of residence.

QN004F Sec 27 --Sec 27 (Separate branch In charge) Hilly Region Branch Old Course—(M21M)
660.500 TITANIUM CNO – PE.880
Mr. Z, a newly qualified chartered accountant started his practice in February 2018 by setting up an office
in the hill station Kodaikanal. Initially, since he was getting very less assignments, he decided to set up a
temporary office in the nearby city Marudai, situated at about 100 kms from the main office. As
planned, he took an office space on rent for the months of April, May & June. During these months, his
regular office was not closed and Mr. Z was in-charge for both the offices. Mrs. A, another newly
qualified chartered accountant who is also in practice in Marudai came to know about the new office of
Mr. Z. Thinking that he could be a potential competitor, she informed the institute stating that Mr. Z
had violated the provisions of the Chartered Accountant Act. As a member of the Board of Discipline
of ICAI, you are requested to analyse this complaint.
Answer As per section 27 of Chartered Accountants Act 1949, if a Chartered Accountant in practice or a Firm
of Chartered Accountants has more than one office in India, each one of such offices should be in the
separate charge of a member of the Institute. Failure on the part of a member or a firm to have a
member in charge of its branch and a separate member in case of each of the branches, where there
www.auditguru.in PARAM 19.10 | P a g e