ICAI Reprimands CA for Auditing Sister’s Firm; Holds Independence Compromised:

Audit of firm where sister held 50% profit share violates Clause (4) of Part I, Second Schedule
ICAI Reprimands CA for Auditing Firm Where Sister Held 50% Share

ICAI Reprimands CA for Auditing Sister’s Firm; Holds Independence Compromised
A complaint was filed against CA Kanika Gupta (M. No. 520423), Faridabad, alleging that she signed the financial statements of M/s Scube Solutions for FY 201-20 as auditor while her sister, Ms. Swati Gupta, held a 50% profit-sharing ratio in the firm. The audit fee of Rs. 20,000 was debited to the Profit and Loss Account, and the complainant questioned the auditor’s independence. The Respondent admitted that her sister was a partner and that she had conducted the audit, but stated that the firm’s turnover was only Rs. 1.10 lakh and the audit was not legally mandatory.
The partnership deed confirmed the sister’s 50% share. The Disciplinary Committee examined whether auditing a concern in which a close relative held a substantial interest violated professional standards.
Main Issue: Whether a Chartered Accountant can audit a firm in which her sister holds a 50% profit share, in view of Clause (4) of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.
Committee's Decision: The Disciplinary Committee of the The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India held that a sister falls within the definition of “relative” and that a 50% profit-sharing ratio constitutes substantial interest under the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988. Where a relative holds not less than 20% interest, a member in practice is prohibited from giving an audit opinion on the financial statements of such person.
The Committee rejected the defence that the audit was voluntary or that no financial loss was caused, stating that auditor independence is fundamental and cannot be compromised based on turnover or circumstances. Therefore, the Respondent was found guilty of Professional Misconduct under Clause (4) of Part I of the Second Schedule and was reprimanded.
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








