The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India’s Disciplinary Committee found CA. Rahul Gupta guilty of professional and other misconduct. The complaint was initiated by Ms. Kamna Sharma, Deputy Registrar of Companies. CA. Rahul Gupta was accused of falsely attesting to documents for a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) as a witness. The committee held a hearing where Gupta argued his signatures were forged using a copy-and-paste method and that the liability should fall on a different professional. He also claimed he reported the forgery to the police and the Registrar of Companies. However, the committee’s investigation, which included a handwriting expert’s report, determined that the signatures on the subscriber’s sheet of the LLP and Gupta’s official records belonged to the same person. The committee also noted that Gupta failed to provide substantive evidence to support his defense or show any progress on the police complaint. The committee concluded that Gupta’s failure to exercise due diligence was a clear case of professional misconduct. As a result, the committee imposed a fine of ₹50,000, which he must pay within 60 days.
THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA
(Set up by an Act of Parliament)
[DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE [BENCH-IV (2024-2025)]
[Constituted under Section 21B of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949]
ORDER UNDER SECTION 216(3) OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ACT, 1949 READ WITH RULE 19(1) OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS (PROCEDURE OF INVESTIGATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL AND OTHER MISCONDUCT AND CONDUCT OF CASES) RULES, 2007.
File No: [PR/G/311/2022/DD/222/2022/DC/1652/2022]
In the matter of:
Ms. Kamna Sharma,
..Complainant
Versus
CA. Rahul Gupta
…Respondent
MEMBERS PRESENT:
1. CA. Ranjeet Kumar Agarwal, Presiding Officer (In person)
2. Shri Jiwesh Nandan, I.A.S (Retd.), Government Nominee (In person)
3. MS. Dakshita Das, I.R.A.S. (Retd.), Government Nominee (In person)
4. CA. Mangesh P Kinare, Member (Through VC)
5. CA. Abhay Chhajed, Member (Through VC)
DATE OF HEARING : 03rd February 2025
DATE OF ORDER : 08th February 2025
1. That vide Findings dated 04.12.2024 under Rule 18(17) of the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007, the Disciplinary Committee was inter-alia of the opinion that CA. Rahul Gupta (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent”) is GUILTY of Professional and Other Misconduct falling within the meaning of Item (7) of Part I of Second Schedule and Item (2) of Part-IV of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.
2. That pursuant to the said Findings, an action under Section 2113(3) of the Chartered Accountants (Amendment) Act, 2006 was contemplated against the Respondent and a communication was addressed to him thereby granting an opportunity of being heard in person/ through video conferencing and to make representation before the Committee on 03rd February 2025.
3. The Committee noted that on the date of hearing on 03rd February 2025, the Respondent was present through video conferencing. During the hearing, the Respondent reiterated his written representation dated 16th December 2024 on the Findings of the Committee, which, inter alia, are given as under:-
(a) The fraudsters abused the image of the signature of the Respondent by copying and pasting on the contentious documents, and it was needless to apply a test ‘whether the signature in the witness column of the contentious document matched with the actual signature of the Respondent’. In a copy/paste fraud, the forged signature would always match with the source document/original.
(b) The Committee never expressed any intent to call for any report from handwriting experts during or after the hearing and no such information was shared with the Respondent.
(c) The certification was done by a different professional namely Mr. J Hedavakumar and if at all any professional liability was to be fixed, it was to be on that certifying professional alone and not on the Respondent.
(d) The Respondent had reported the matter to the Police and thereafter to the Registrar of Companies immediately on knowing about the offence committed against him. So, it was not a case of an afterthought as wrongly alleged.
(e) The Respondent was not associated with LLP or its promoters, and had never signed any documents, and also that the image of his signature was copied and pasted by someone fraudulently in the witness column of the attachment to the FiLLiP Form.
(f) The circumstantial and surrounding evidence shows that the Respondent was not involved in the formation of the contentious LLP and that it was case of forgery and fabrication.
(g) It is not possible for the Respondent to provide any evidence to prove his innocence that he was not associated with the contentious LLP or had not signed the witness document as alleged.
4. The Committee considered the reasoning as contained in Findings holding the Respondent ‘Guilty’ of Professional and Other Misconduct vis-à-vis written and verbal representation of the Respondent. The Committee noted that the issues/ submissions made by the Respondent as aforestated have been dealt with by it at the time of hearing under Rule 18.
5. Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and material on record including written and verbal representation of the Respondent on the Findings, the Committee noted that the signatures of the Respondent available in office record and his signatures used in certification of subscriber’s sheet attached with Form FiLLIP of LLP were verified by Handwriting and Fingerprints Expert. On perusal of Report dated 05.08.2024, the Committee observed that Handwriting and Fingerprints Expert had opined that the signatures contained in the subscriber’s sheet and signatures contained in office record of ICAI were written by one and the same person, namely CA. Rahul Gupta.
6. As regards the contention of the Respondent that the Committee did not express any intent to call for any report during or after the hearing and non-sharing of report of handwriting expert with him, the Committee noted that it had primarily relied upon the view of the Board of Discipline on the decision taken by it in respect of signature verification of Respondent which was matched with the signatures of the Respondent as available in member record of ICAI and also in written statement submitted by the Respondent in instant case. However, as a measure of abundant caution and to rule out any possibility of misuse of signatures of Respondent as contended by him, the Committee got the signatures of the Respondent examined through a handwriting expert as well.
7. The Committee also noted that the Respondent pleaded forgery of his signatures but he failed to produce any further document on police complaint/ ROC Complaint filed by him showing decision/ development in his favour on the said proceedings. The Committee further noted that the Respondent did not argue the case on merits and thereby misled the Committee. The signatures of the Respondent on the subscriber’s sheet of the subject LLP as a witness proved his involvement in the matter. Further, on spot verification of the subject LLP by the Complainant department, it was found,that the LLP was not maintaining its registered office at the given address. The Committee noted that the Respondent has failed to prove his defence by not providing substantive evidence. The Committee was thus of the view that the Respondent had failed to exercise due diligence in the matter.
8. Hence, the Professional and Other Misconduct on the part of the Respondent is clearly established as spelt out in the Committee’s Findings dated 04.12.2024 which is to be read in consonance with the instant Order being passed in the case.
9. Accordingly, the Committee was of the view that the ends of justice would be met if punishment is given to him in commensurate with his Professional and Other Misconduct.
10. Thus, the Committee ordered that a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) be imposed upon the Respondent i.e., CA. Rahul Gupta, which shall be paid within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of the Order.
Sd/-
(CA. RANJEET KUMAR AGARWAL}
PRESIDING OFFICER
Sd/-
(SHRI JIWESH NAN DAN, 1.A.S. {RETD.})
GOVERNMENT NOMINEE
Sd/-
(MS. DAKSHITA DAS, I.R.A.S.{RETD.})
GOVERNMENT NOMINEE
Sd/-
(CA. MANGESH P KINARE}
MEMBER
Sd/-
(CA. ABHAY CHHAJED)
MEMBER
