ICAI

Re-appointment of auditor in company who ceases to be covered by section 139 – ICAI

Re-appointment of erstwhile auditor in company who ceases to be governed by the rotation principles u/s 139 can be made – ICAI

ICAI has clarified on the applicability of Auditor’s Rotation principles on a company as per Section 139 of the Companies Act 2013 where the company ceases to fall under the ambit of Rotation principles in subsequent years.

Section 139 (2) of the Companies Act 2013 provides that no listed company or a company belonging to such class or classes of companies as may be prescribed, shall appoint or reappoint—

(a) an individual as auditor for more than one term of five consecutive years; and

(b) an audit firm as auditor for more than two terms of five consecutive years:

Further as per the “Companies (Audit and Auditors) Rules, 2014, for the purposes of subsection (2) of section 139, the class of companies shall mean the following classes of companies excluding one person companies and small companies:-

(a) all unlisted public companies having paid up share capital of rupees ten crore or more;

(b) all private limited companies having paid up share capital of rupees fifty crore or more;

(c) all companies having paid up share capital of below threshold limit mentioned in (a) and (b) above, but having public borrowings from financial institutions, banks or public deposits of rupees fifty crores or more.

The ICAI has illustrated the issue with an example as under:

“A Chartered Accountant/firm, an auditor in a company on which Rules relating to Rotation of auditors were applicable, retired in the year 2017 and a new auditor appointed in the same year. After amendment was brought as per Companies (Amendment) Act 2017, the company do not meet principles of rotation of auditors in the year 2018.

The Query

Whether the auditor who was an auditor of the company in the year 2017 can be reappointed by the company as the company ceases to fall under the criteria of rotation of auditors?”

ICAI View

It has been stated that the Corporate Laws & Corporate Governance Committee of the ICAI at its 43rd meeting held on 7th January, 2019 discussed the issue and was of the view that since the requirement of rotation of auditors is not applicable on the company subsequently, therefore the auditor who was the auditor in the company earlier in the year 2017 can be reappointed without prejudice to the other provisions of the Companies Act 2013.

In other words, once a company ceases to fall under the ambit of Rotation principles, the company can appoint any chartered accountant/ firm as an auditor of the company irrespective of the fact that the same chartered accountant/ firm was an auditor of the company in previous years.

Note: Subsequent to MCA instructions, ICAI has withdrawn the above advisory

ANNOUNCEMENT

Withdrawal of the Announcement regarding Clarification on Applicability of Rotation principles on a company as per Section 139 of the Companies Act 2013 where the company ceases to fall under the ambit of Rotation principles in subsequent years.

The Corporate Laws & Corporate Governance Committee had issued the announcement regarding clarification on the applicability of Rotation principles on a company as per Section 139 of the Companies Act 2013 where the company ceases to fall under the ambit of Rotation principles in subsequent years on 29th January, 2019

The aforesaid Announcement is withdrawn and it shall not be taken in to effect.

(Rakesh Sehgal)
Acting Secretary

 

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

AO not justified in rejecting registered valuer’s report without reference to DVO – ITAT

AO not justified in rejecting registered valuer’s report without making a reference to the DVO - ITAT In a recent…

4 days ago
  • FCRA

FCRA specifies list of 105 purposes to be selected for which registration is applied

FCRA specifies list of purposes to be selected for which registration is applied.  The Ministry of Home Affairs has notified…

1 week ago
  • Income Tax

Withholding tax u/s 40(a)(i) not required on cost-to-cost reimbursement made to parent company

Assessee was not liable to withhold tax at source u/s 40(a)(i) on cost-to-cost reimbursement made to parent company In a…

1 week ago
  • Government

Temporarily blocking public access to Telegram App not disproportionate – Delhi High Court

Temporarily blocking public access to Telegram App under section 69A of IT Act 2000 is not disproportionate - Delhi HC…

1 week ago
  • Income Tax

High Court explains the meaning of term ‘enterprise’ appearing in section 80IA

High Court explains the meaning of term ‘enterprise’ appearing in section 80IA to means a project or an undertaking owned…

1 week ago
  • Income Tax

Addition deleted as assessee was only a carrier of cash not owner who came up to own it

Addition deleted as assessee was only a carrier of cash and the real owner had come forward owning the cash…

2 weeks ago