ICAI Reprimands CA for Uploading Unsigned Financial Statements Without UDIN and certifying AOC-4:

ICAI Reprimands CA for Uploading Unsigned Financial Statements Without UDIN and certifying AOC-4 The complaint arose from a inspection conducted under Section 206(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, pursuant to a reference from the Registrar of Companies, Kanpur, concerning multiple Producer Companies in Uttar Pradesh. During inspection, it was noticed that 14 Producer Companies had filed their Financial Statements for FY 2021-22 through e-Form AOC-4, which were certified by CA Gulam Gauhar Warsi. However, the Financial Statements and Directors’ Reports attached to the filings were not signed by the Directors, which was mandatorily required under Section 134 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Respondent, who acted both as a statutory auditor and certifying professional, admitted that unsigned Financial Statements were uploaded due to oversight by his staff. It was also found that the uploaded documents did not contain UDIN, despite its mandatory applicability. The Respondent pleaded guilty during the disciplinary proceedings and sought leniency, saying that he was in early stage of his professional career and there was absence of any mala fide intent. Main Issue: Whether certifying e-Form AOC-4 with unsigned Financial Statements and without UDIN amounts to professional misconduct due to lack of due diligence under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. ICAI Committee's Decision: The Disciplinary Committee of ICAI held that the Respondent failed to exercise due diligence and was grossly negligent in the conduct of his professional duties. The Committee noted that responsibility for ensuring statutory compliance rests with the Chartered Accountant certifying the e-form, irrespective of delegation to staff. Uploading unauthenticated financial statements and certifying AOC-4 without verifying Director signatures and UDIN constituted a clear violation of Section 134 of the Companies Act, 2013 and Rule 8 of the Companies (Registration Offices and Fees) Rules, 2014. The Committee concluded that the ends of justice would be met by imposing a reprimand. Therefore, the Respondent was reprimanded under Section 21B(3)(a) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below