ICAI Reprimands CA for Certifying Revised AOC-4 Without NCLT Approval:

ICAI Reprimands CA for Certifying Revised AOC-4 Without NCLT Approval

Revision of shareholding pattern and Board’s Report without Section 131 compliance held as gross negligence.

ICAI Reprimands CA for Certifying Revised AOC-4 Without NCLT Approval; Rs. 50,000 Fine Imposed

authorMeetu KumaridateFeb 16, 2026
Last update on Feb 16, 2026
ICAI Reprimands CA for Certifying Revised AOC-4 Without NCLT Approval The Disciplinary Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India examined a complaint filed by Shri Manoj Laljibhai Baldha against CA Hasmukh Bhagwanji Kalaria. The complainant had acquired 10% shareholding in M/s Akshar Spintex Private Limited in 2016 and was reflected as such in the audited financial statements for FY 2016-17 and in the original Form AOC-4 XBRL filed on 07.11.2017. A revised Form AOC-4 XBRL was later filed on 23.01.2018, certified by the Respondent, removing the complainant’s name from the shareholding pattern and making other changes, including alterations in shareholding percentages and Board meeting dates.
Sales Tax Bar Urges FM to Reduce High GSTAT Appeal Fees; Highlights Burden on MSMEs and Small Traders
It was undisputed that no prior approval was obtained from the National Company Law Tribunal under Section 131 of the Companies Act, 2013 before filing the revised form.  The Director (Discipline) formed a prima facie view of lack of due diligence, and proceedings were initiated under Item (7) of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. Main Issue: Whether certifying a revised Form AOC-4 involving substantive changes in shareholding and Board’s Report without prior NCLT approval under Section 131 amounts to professional misconduct.
Sales Tax Bar Urges FM to Reduce High GSTAT Appeal Fees; Highlights Burden on MSMEs and Small Traders
Committee Held: The Committee held that Notes to Accounts are important to financial statements and that changes in shareholding disclosures constitute revision of financial statements and the Board’s Report. Section 131 mandates prior Tribunal approval for such voluntary revision once the statements are adopted and filed. The revised filing was not a mere clerical correction. The Committee held that certifying the revised filing without ensuring statutory compliance amounted to gross negligence and lack of due diligence. He was found guilty under Item (7) of Part I of the Second Schedule and was reprimanded, with a fine of Rs. 50,000, payable within 60 days. 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.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2158
Up Next

Loading suggestions…