During tenure as SCA/SA, an audit firm may be appointed as concurrent auditor of the bank

During tenure as SCA/SA, an audit firm may be appointed as concurrent auditor of the same bank. Clarification regarding Guidelines issued by RBI for Appointment of Statutory Central Auditors  (SCAs)/Statutory Auditors (SAs) of Commercial Banks (Excluding RRBs), UCBs and NBFCs (including HFCs)

The RBI has issued a Circular dated April 27, 2021, in respect of “Guidelines for the Appointment of SCAs and SAs of Commercial Banks (Excluding RRBs), UCBs, and NBFCs (including HFCs)”.

ICAI in its announcement dated 28.12.2023 has informed that it has received a communication from RBI wherein it is informed that the RBI and the banks have been receiving queries from the Chartered Accountants/Chartered Accountants firms seeking clarification as to whether concurrent audit assignments would also fall under the framework of point no. 6.4 while assessing and establishing the independence of auditors.

Point no 6.4 states as follows:

• 6.4 The time gap between any non-audit works (services mentioned at Section 144 of Companies Act, 2013, Internal assignments, special assignments, etc.) by the SCAs/SAs for the Entities or any audit/non-audit works for its group entities should be at least one year, before or after its appointment as SCAs/SAs. However, during the tenure as SCA/SA, an audit firm may provide such services to the concerned Entities which may not normally result in a conflict of interest, and Entities may take their own decision in this regard, in consultation with the Board/ACB/LMC.”

According to the ICAI, the RBI has clarified that the Concurrent audit assignments would also fall under the framework of above-mentioned Para 6.4 of Circular dated April 27, 2021.

• ITAT allows exemption of Rs. 25 lakhs u/s 10(10A) to non-government employees
• PCIT has revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 over the cases passed by the NFAC or the JAO
• Appellate court interfering with MACT finding must undertake reappreciation of evidence
• When delay is not huge & involves huge monetary liability, lenient approach to be taken
• EoGM of company can not ratify diversion of fund raised by preferential issue – SC