Excel for
Chartered Accountants

· There was no process of maintaining standard checklists, manuals, working papers and other methods to ensure consistency in the quality of each engagement.

· Written confirmation of compliance with its policies and procedures on independence from employees was not taken as required by SA-220.

· Since there were only two partners and both of them being part of engagement team, there has been no review of completed engagements by an independent person. No other partner other than the engagement partner was involved in the audit process.

· Para 20 of SA 220 states that the engagement quality control reviewer shall perform an objective evaluation of the significant judgments made by the engagement team and the conclusions reached in formulating the auditor’s report. However, there was no evidence on record in the work papers for having conducted the review process on the matters specified in Para 20.

· The documentation to provide evidence of the operation of each element of its system of quality control not maintained as required by the SA 220 Quality control for audit of financial Statement. In other case, no document was found regarding quality control review.

· The Audit Firm did not document the policy for second partner review as required by the Para 25 of SA 220.

· The firm was not having any written policies and procedures on record as required under SA-220.

Quality Review Board Report on Quality Review Findings (2012-15) Click Here >>

Quality Review Board (QRB) Report 2012-15- Quality Control for An Audit of Financial Statements in Accordance with Standard on Auditing SA 220 |18-08-2015|