ICAI

ICAI bans Ahmedabad based CA for 2 years for misconduct of gross negligence

ICAI bans Ahmedabad based CA for  2 years for misconduct of gross negligence in performing his professional duties which was upheld by the Gujarat High Court 

The ICAI has notified the removal of the CA found guilty of misconduct from the Register of Members for a period of two years for violation falling under Part I of the Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

It has been further clarified that during the aforesaid period he shall not practise as a Chartered Accountant in terms of the said order of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat.

Earlier Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat [ABCAUS  2118 (2017) (11) HC] has upheld the decision of the ICAI holding the CA guilty of professional misconduct. 

In the instant case, the firm of the Chartered Accountant was allotted the audit of a Cooperative Bank (‘Bank’) by the Registrar of Societies.

Subsequently, due to a scam unearthed at the bank, the Registrar carried out a re-audit of the Bank for. Based on the re-audit Report, the Registrar found that the respondent CA had neither disclosed nor reported serious irregularities in the accounts of the Bank and that the respondent CA had failed to disclose material mis-statements which were not disclosed also in the financial statement of the Bank though they were known to him.

According to the Report, the respondent CA had shown gross negligence in performing his professional duties and had failed to obtain sufficient information to warrant the expression of opinion. The Registrar was also of the opinion that the respondent CA had failed to invite the attention to material departures from the generally accepted procedure of audit applicable to the Banks.

Read the ICAI Notification for removal Click Here >>

----------- Similar Posts: -----------
Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Notice issued u/s 143(2) prior to filing of return of income assessee is invalid

Notice issued u/s 143(2) prior to filing of return of income by the assessee was invalid. Before filing ITR provisions…

18 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Order u/s 148A(d) passed against non-existent entity is bad in eyes of law – High Court

Order u/s 148A(d) passed against non-existent entity is bad in eyes of law. Mere activation of PAN not give right…

22 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Tax authorities not bound with provisions of section 44AE once assessee waived option

Tax authorities not bound with provisions of section 44AE of the Act once assessee waived the option available In a…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Whether seized document is incriminating or not is a findings of fact – High Court

Whether seized document is incriminating or not is definitely a findings of fact – High Court In a recent judgment,…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Interest earned on borrowed funds/unutilized capital subsidy is capital receipts – High Court

Interest earned on borrowed funds/ unutilized capital subsidy are capital receipts In a recent judgment, Hon'ble Guwahati High Court has…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

No statutory requirement of pre-deposit for stay of demand under Income Tax Act – HC

There is no statutory requirement of pre-deposit for stay of demand under Income Tax Act - High Court stayed demand  …

3 days ago