ICAI Reprimands CA for Wrongly Certifying Unabsorbed Depreciation in Tax Audit Report:

ICAI Reprimands CA for Wrongly Certifying Unabsorbed Depreciation in Tax Audit Report

Failure to verify set-off of Rs. 2 crore depreciation held as gross negligence under the Second Schedule.

ICAI Reprimands CA for Certifying Wrong Depreciation in Form 3CD

authorMeetu KumaridateFeb 16, 2026
Last update on Feb 16, 2026
ICAI Reprimands CA for Wrongly Certifying Unabsorbed Depreciation in Tax Audit Report The Disciplinary Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India examined a complaint filed by Shri Je Kook Ryu, Managing Director of M/s Glotech Mold India Pvt. Ltd., Pune, against CA Upendra Vasant Bodas (M. No. 041343).
Sales Tax Bar Urges FM to Reduce High GSTAT Appeal Fees; Highlights Burden on MSMEs and Small Traders
The allegation related to the Tax Audit Report for AY 2015-16, wherein unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 2,00,89,668/- was reported as available for set-off, despite having been fully adjusted in AY 2009-10. The complainant alleged that this resulted in an understatement of taxable income and tax demand. Main Issue: Whether certifying incorrect unabsorbed depreciation in Form 3CD without proper verification amounts to professional misconduct under Item (7) of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. Committee's Order: The Committee observed that although there was no conclusive evidence that the Respondent filed the income tax return, he had admittedly signed and certified the Tax Audit Report for AY 2015-16. A comparison of audit reports for AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16 showed that depreciation figures had been incorrectly clubbed, resulting in previously set-off depreciation being shown again as available.
Sales Tax Bar Urges FM to Reduce High GSTAT Appeal Fees; Highlights Burden on MSMEs and Small Traders
The Committee held that a Tax Auditor cannot mechanically rely on software-generated data without independent verification. Certification of statutory reports requires application of professional judgment and due diligence. The Committee concluded that the Respondent failed to exercise due care and was guilty of professional misconduct under Item (7) of Part I of the Second Schedule. He was accordingly Reprimanded under Section 21B(3)(a) of the Act. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below

About Author

LinkedIn

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
2231
Up Next

Loading suggestions…