Page 387 - CA Final Audit Titanium Full Book. (With Cover Pages)
P. 387

CA Ravi Taori

         Front of card: Council members, Regional Council members, and Branch Committee members should list their
         respective addresses of ICAI HO, Regional Office, Branch Office along with respective telephone numbers, fax,
         and email and also personal telephone number and email.
         Back of card: Members can opt to print either their home or office address and phone/fax number. Firm's name
         should not be included.

        Note: Some Concepts & Clarification are covered with Council guidelines & recent decisions of Ethical Standard

        Board given at the end of the Chapter

         (CNO-PE.1220) CLAUSE 8 Bare Text: -
         Clause (8) accepts a position as auditor previously held by another chartered accountant or a certified auditor
         who has been issued certificate under the Restricted Certificate Rules, 1932 without first communicating with
         him in writing.
         Rationale:
         Courtesy & Reason: The requirement for a new accountant to communicate with the existing one is not solely
         based on professional courtesy. It provides an opportunity for the existing accountant to understand the reasons
         for the change and safeguard their interests, the public's legitimate interests, and their own independence.
         Client's Right: Every client has the inherent right to choose their accountant and can change them subject to
         statutory  requirements,  especially  in  the  case  of  limited  companies.  The  reasons  for  the  change  could  be
         numerous, including a change of business venue, retirement or death of the handling partner, personality clashes,
         or client dissatisfaction.
         Reasons for not Accepting Audit
         1.Professional  Reasons:  The  professional  reasons  for  not  accepting  an  audit  include  non-compliance  with
         Sections 139 and 140 of the Companies Act, 2013, non-payment of undisputed audit fees, and issuance of a
         qualified report. Accepting an audit under the first two conditions would constitute professional misconduct.
         2A. Payment of Undisputed Audit Fees: If the previous auditor is unavailable to accept payment of undisputed
         audit fees, the incoming auditor may advise the client to purchase a Demand Draft equivalent to the fees and
         verify the same before accepting the audit.
         2B.  Undisputed  Audit  Fee:  The  Council  General  Guidelines,  2008  defines  "undisputed  audit  fee"  as  the
         provision for audit fee in accounts signed by both the auditee and the auditor, along with other expenses incurred
         by the auditor in connection with the audit.
         3. Qualified Report: An incoming auditor may accept an audit with a qualified report if they believe the retiring
         auditor's attitude was unjustified. However, if the retiring auditor had valid reasons for qualifying the report, the
         incoming auditor should refuse the audit.
         Change Procedure: When a prospective client wishes to change auditors, the incoming auditor should confirm
         whether the retiring auditor has been informed. If not, the incoming auditor should inquire about the reasons
         for the change and & it would be healthy practice to refuse the audit if no valid reason is provided. If he decides
         to accept the audit, he should address a communication to the retiring auditor.
         Non-Response  from  Retiring  Auditor:  If the  retiring auditor does  not  respond to  the incoming auditor's
         communication, the incoming auditor can proceed with the appointment after waiting a reasonable time for a
         reply.
         Positive proof of delivery.
         Certificate  of  Posting:  The  Council  believes  that  merely  posting  a  letter  "under  certificate  of  posting"  is
         insufficient to establish communication with the retiring auditor. There must be evidence that the letter has
         reached the intended recipient.
         Case Law: The Council's view is confirmed by the Rajasthan High Court in J.S. Bhati v.s. The Council of the
         Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. The court stated that obtaining a certificate of posting does not fulfil
         the requirements of Clause (8) of Schedule I, as it does not provide positive proof of delivery.

        www.auditguru.in                                                                                            19.31
   382   383   384   385   386   387   388   389   390   391   392