Page 463 - CA Final PARAM Digital Book.
P. 463

▪  Council General Guidelines 2008- Specified number of audit assignments
                      ▪  Council General Guidelines 2008- Maintenance of books of accounts

                  Part II -- Requirements of Relevant Laws
                      ➢  Chapter VIII of Council General Guidelines 2008 - Specified number of audit assignments
                         The  Council  of  the  Institute  of  Chartered  Accountants  of  India  specified  that  a  Chartered
                         Accountants  in  practice  as  well  as  a  firm  in  practice  shall  maintain  a  record  of  the  audit
                         assignments accepted as laid out in guidelines issued by the Council of the ICAI under Part II of
                         Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 in respect of ceiling on audits containing
                         following particulars:
                             •  Name of Company Audit/ Assignment.
                             •  Regn. No.
                             •  Date of appointment with Registrar of Companies.
                             •  Date of acceptance.
                             •  Date on which Form ADT-1 as per the provisions and rules made under Companies Act,
                                 2013.
                      ➢  Chapter V of the Council General Guidelines, 2008 - Maintenance of books of accounts
                         A  member  of  the  Institute  in  practice  or  the  firm  of  Chartered  Accountants  of  which  he  is  a
                         partner,  shall  maintain  and  keep  in  respect  of  his/its  professional  practice,  proper  books  of
                         accounts including the following-
                             (i)  a Cash Book
                             (ii)  a Ledger
                  Part III – Case Discussion
                      ➢  In the given case, L, a chartered accountant did not maintain books of account for his professional
                         earnings on the ground that his income is less than the limits prescribed u/s 44AA of the Income
                         Tax Act, 1961.
                  Part IV – Conclusion
                      ➢  Hence, Mr. L is guilty of professional misconduct.




                                                 OTHERS (P.E)


          QNO     Excessive Fees                                  Old Course-- (M13R, N15R, M17M, PM17, M18M)
          779.000  TITANIUM CNO – PE.1760

                  MNC  Pvt.  Ltd.  appointed  CA.  Posh  for  some  professional  assignments  like  company’s  ROC  work,
                  preparation  of  minutes,  statutory  register  etc.  For  this,  CA.  Posh  charged  his  fees  depending  on  the
                  complexity and the time spent by him on each assignment. Later on, MNC Pvt. Ltd. filed a complaint

                  against CA. Posh to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) that he has charged excessive
                  fees for the assignment’s comparative to the scale of fees recommended by the Committee as well as
                  duly considered by the Council of ICAI.
          Answer  Part I -- Relevant Standards & Laws
                      ▪  Provisions of Chartered Accountants Act, 1949
                      ▪  Council General Guidelines, 2008
                  Part II -- Requirements of Relevant Standards & Laws
                      ➢  The prescribed scale of fees for the professional assignments done by the chartered accountants is
                         recommendatory  in  nature.  Charging  an  excessive  fee  for  a  professional  assignment  does  not
                         constitute  any  misconduct  in  the  context  of  the  provisions  of  the  Chartered  Accountants  Act,
                         1949  and  regulation  made  thereunder  since  the  matter  of  fixation  of  actual  fee  charged  in
                         individual cases depends upon the mutual agreement and understanding between the member
                         and the client.
                  Part III – Case Discussion
                      ➢  In the given case, CA. Posh has charged excess fees comparative to the scale of fees recommended
                         by the Committee as well as duly considered by the Council of ICAI. In this context, it may be noted

          www.auditguru.in                                                    PARAM                                                          19.105 | P a g e
   458   459   460   461   462   463   464   465   466   467   468