ICAI Disciplinary Committee Reprimands CA for Auditing Firm Where Wife Held Majority Stake:

Committee finds violation of independence norms after CA audited partnership firm in which his wife held up to 73% profit share.
ICAI Reprimands CA for Auditing Firm Where Wife Held 73% Profit Share

ICAI Disciplinary Committee Reprimands CA for Auditing Firm Where Wife Held Majority Stake
A complaint was filed by CA B.S. Roopkumar against CA Besur Hallappa Renukappa before the Disciplinary Directorate of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India regarding his professional conduct in relation to the partnership firm M/s Saishiva Hotels Inc., Bengaluru.
After reviewing the complaint, the Director (Discipline) found that the key issue requiring examination was that the respondent had audited the firm’s financial statements even though his wife was a partner in the firm with a substantial profit share ranging from 51% to 73% during FY 2013–14 and FY 2014-15. Despite being aware of this relationship, and even disclosing it in the tax audit report, the respondent continued with the audit engagement.
Issue Raised: Whether a chartered accountant commits professional misconduct by auditing the financial statements of an entity in which his spouse has a substantial financial interest.
Tribunal Ruling: The Disciplinary Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India held the respondent guilty of professional misconduct under Item (4) of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. The Committee observed that auditor independence is fundamental, and the ICAI Code of Ethics prohibits an auditor from expressing an opinion on financial statements where he or his relative has a substantial interest.
Since the respondent’s wife was a partner with a significant profit share, the situation created a clear conflict affecting independence. However, considering that the respondent admitted the lapse, had disclosed the relationship in the audit report, and the entity involved was a closely held firm with no public interest element, the Committee imposed a minimal penalty and reprimanded the respondent. To Read Full Order, Download PDF Given BelowAbout Author

Meetu Kumari
Content Manager
Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2191My Recent Articles
- ITAT Quashes Section 153C Assessments Without Incriminating Material For Completed YearsPremium
- High Court Upholds DGGI Arrest Despite Prior State GST InvestigationPremium
- ITAT Holds Section 263 Assessment Cannot Survive After Revision Order Is QuashedPremium
- ITAT Allows Section 80P Deduction on Interest From Co-operative BanksPremium
- ITAT Deletes Demonetisation Addition on Marriage Gift and Household Cash ExplanationPremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts









