ICAI Fines CA for Accepting Audit Without Prior Communication With Outgoing Auditor:

ICAI Board of Discipline holds Chartered Accountant guilty of professional misconduct for violating ethical norms
ICAI Fines Chartered Accountant for Audit Appointment Without Prior Communication

ICAI Fines CA for Accepting Audit Without Prior Communication With Outgoing Auditor
The complaint arose from a professional dispute relating to the statutory audit of M/s Gandhinagar Leasing and Finance Ltd. for FY 2015-16. The complainant, CA Manoj Harivadan Lekinwala, along with M/s G J K & Associates, had acted as joint statutory auditors for the company in earlier years. It was alleged that their undisputed audit fees remained unpaid.
Still the respondent, CA Amit Kumar Jitendrabhai Joshi, accepted appointment as statutory auditor on 31 December 2015 without ensuring proper prior communication with the outgoing auditors, as required under the ICAI Code of Ethics. The respondent claimed that communication had been made through email and that a No Objection Certificate (NOC) was later obtained, while also disputing the quantum of unpaid fees.
Main Issue: Whether acceptance of statutory audit by the respondent without proper prior communication with the outgoing auditors amounted to professional misconduct under Item (8) of Part I of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.
Board's Decision: The ICAI Board of Discipline held that the respondent failed to establish that due and verifiable communication was made with the outgoing auditors before accepting the audit assignment. The Board found serious inconsistencies including doubts over the authenticity of emails, timing of the NOC, and procedural irregularities in audit filings.
The Board concluded that the respondent accepted the statutory audit engagement without complying with mandatory ethical requirements. Therefore, the respondent was held guilty of professional misconduct under Item (8) of Part I of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. The Board imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000 under Section 21A(3) of the Act.
To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below
About 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
2231My Recent Articles
- ITAT Restricts Bogus Purchase Addition to 1.15% Profit Element Despite Seller DenialsPremium
- ITAT Upholds Reassessment, Rejects Challenge Over Absence of Section 143(2) NoticePremium
- High Court Quashes Section 148 Notice Based on Wrong Assessee's Investigation ReportPremium
- ITAT Allows Set-Off of Brought Forward Business Loss Against Section 50 Capital GainsPremium
- High Court Quashes Reassessment Based on Mere Change of Opinion After ScrutinyPremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








