ICAI bans Chartered Accountant for 1 year from practice due to misconduct

ICAI bans a Chartered Accountant for one year from practice being found guilty of professional misconduct of lack of due diligence/ discharge of duties as auditor

THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA
(Set up under an Act of Parliament)

NOTIFICATION

New Delhi, the 3rd April, 2019

(CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS)

No. 29-CA/Law/D-268/2019.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 20 of The Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 read with Regulation 18 of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988, it is hereby notified by the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has, in pursuance of Section 21(6)(C) of the said Act [as it stood prior to the Chartered Accountants (Amendment) Act, 2006], in Chat. A. Ref. 2/2011, ordered on 01.02.2017 that the name of Shri Anil Kumar, Chartered Accountant, E-174, LGF, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi-110024 and C-84, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi-110048 (M.No. 085017) be removed from the Register of Members for a period of one year for having been found guilty of professional misconduct falling within the meaning Clauses (5), (6), (7) & (8) of Part I of Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 [as it stood prior to the Chartered Accountants (Amendment) Act, 2006].

The Review Petition No. 99/2017 filed by Shri Anil Kumar against the aforesaid Order dated 01.02.2017 passed in Chat. A. Ref. 2/2011 has also been dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide its Order dated 16.11.2018.

Accordingly, it is hereby informed that the name of the said Shri Anil Kumar shall stand removed from the Register of Members for a period of one year from the date of publication of this Notification in Gazette of India. During this period he shall not practice as a Chartered Accountant in terms of the said Order of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.

RAKESH SEHGAL, Acting Secy.
[ADVT-III/4/Exty./27/19]

ABCAUS Note:

The allegation against the said CA was that he had acted in collusion with the Managing Committee of a Society in arbitrarily reducing the amount deposited by the the complainant which was reflected in the ledger account maintained by the Society in the name of the complainant.

The ICAI held that there was lack of due diligence/ discharge of the duties by the CA as an auditor and he had failed to explain the basis of such certification of the deposit