ROC Mumbai Imposes Penalty for Incorrect Filing of AOC-4 XBRL by Director:

ROC penalised a company director Rs 10,000 for filing an incorrect AOC-4 XBRL form with wrong attachments and details for FY 2022-23.
Penalty Levied on Director for Errors in AOC-4 XBRL Filing

ROC Mumbai Imposes Penalty for Incorrect Filing of AOC-4 XBRL by Director
The Registrar of Companies (ROC), Mumbai, imposed a penalty on the director of Chheda Jewellers Limited for submitting incorrect details and attachments in the E-form AOC-4 XBRL.
Background of the case
The Registrar of Companies, Mumbai-I, received a suo motu adjudication application from the Managing Director of the company under Section 454 of the Companies Act, 2013. The application was filed due to incorrect details submitted in E-form AOC-4 XBRL for the financial year 2022-23.
According to Rule 8(1) and Rule 8(3) of the Companies (Registration Offices and Fees) Rules, 2014, every e-form must be digitally signed by an authorised signatory, and such signatory is responsible for the correctness of the contents and attachments.
The applicant stated that the errors occurred due to inadvertent clerical mistakes. These included the omission of AOC-1 and AOC-2, attaching the auditor’s report of standalone financial statements instead of the consolidated report, and mentioning an incorrect date of the Annual General Meeting. Since the form was digitally signed by the Managing Director, he is responsible for these inaccuracies.
A Show Cause Notice was issued under Section 454 read with Section 450 of the Act for violation of Rule 8(3). The noticee submitted his reply through the e-adjudication portal. He did not request a hearing, and the Adjudicating Officer also found that a hearing was not necessary in this case.
ROC observed that the company had filed the E-form AOC-4 XBRL on July 05, 2024. However, incorrect documents were attached, and required attachments were omitted. The form was approved under the Straight Through Process (STP) system. This resulted in non-compliance with Rule 8(3), which mandates the correctness of the form and its attachments. Since the form was certified and signed by the director, he is held liable for the default.
Accordingly, a penalty of Rs 10,000 has been imposed on the director under Section 450 of the Companies Act, 2013.
About Author
Vanshika verma
Content Writer
Vanshika Verma is a Content Writer with 1+ year of experience at Studycafe.in. A B.Com graduate from Delhi University, She writes articles on Finance, Tax, ICAI, GST, and the latest financial news, with a focus on making complex topics easy for readers and professionals.
Vanshika Verma is a Content Writer with 1+ year of experience at Studycafe.in. A B.Com graduate from Delhi University, She writes articles on Finance, Tax, ICAI, GST, and the latest financial news, with a focus on making complex topics easy for readers and professionals.
Studycafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
1985My Recent Articles
- Vikran Engineering Receives Rs 1.55 Crore GST Notice Including Rs 83.62 Lakh Tax Demand, Interest and Penalty
- Fire Officer Allegedly Demanded Rs 3 Lakh for School NOC, Caught Accepting Rs 1 Lakh in Lokayukta Trap
- Telangana GST Fraud: CGST Unearths Rs 5.68 Crore Tax Evasion Through Alleged Fake SEZ Registration, Proprietor Arrested
- Mahadev Betting Case: CBI Arrests Key Accused Abhishek Kumar After UAE Deportation, ED Flags Rs 94,000 Crore Illegal Money Trail
- Court Allows 7 Arrested Foreigners To Travel Abroad For A Month To Meet Their Families
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts
All Posts
Recent Posts
All Posts








