NFRA slaps 3 year Ban along with Penalty on CA for Audit Lapses and Professional misconduct [Read Order]

The National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA) in the matter of Bilcare Limited against CA Ratan Laxminarayan Rathi has imposed a monetary penalty of Rs 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) upon the Chartered Accountant and debarred for 2 years (Two years) from being appointed as an auditor or internal auditor or from undertaking any audit in respect of financial statements or internal audit of the functions and activities of any company or body corporate.

Articles of Charges of Professional Misconduct by the Engagement Partner (EP)

The EP committed professional misconduct as defined by clause 5 of Part I of the Second Schedule of the CA Act, which states that a CA is guilty of professional misconduct when he “fails to disclose a material fact known to him which is not disclosed in a financial statement, but disclosure of which is necessary in making such financial statement where he is concerned with that financial statement in a professional capacity”.

The EP committed professional misconduct as defined by clause 6 of Part I of the Second Schedule of the CA Act, which states that a CA is guilty of professional misconduct when he “fails to report a material misstatement known to him to appear in a financial statement with which he is concerned in a professional capacity”.

The EP committed professional misconduct as defined by clause 7 of Part I of the Second Schedule of the CA Act, which states that a CA is guilty of professional misconduct when he “does not exercise due diligence or is grossly negligent in the conduct of his professional duties”.

The EP committed professional misconduct as defined by clause 8 of Part I of the Second Schedule of the CA Act, which states that an EP is guilty of professional misconduct when he “fails to obtain sufficient information which is necessary for expression of an opinion, or its exceptions are sufficiently material to negate the expression of an opinion”.

This charge is proved as the EP failed to conduct the audit in accordance with the SAs and applicable regulations and failed to analyse and report the appropriateness of accounting policy for recognition of interest cost on NPA loans in the financial statements.

The EP committed professional misconduct as defined by clause 9 of Part I of the Second Schedule of the CA Act, which states that an EP is guilty of professional misconduct when he “fails to invite attention to any material departure from the generally accepted procedure of audit applicable to the circumstances”.

Click on below mentioned link to read the Complete Order