ICAI has hosted Draft Bank Branch Auditors’ Panel for the year 2013-14 on its portal http://www.meficai.org/ .  The panel was not having the name of the Applicants from whom  1. Declaration not received 2. Financial Documents called for but not received 3. Query raised and replies not received/under checking .  We are giving below an analysis of the panel hosted on ICAI MEF Portal :- 



I 1,715 05.53
II 2,949 09.51
III 3,932 12.67
INELIGIBLE 5,606 18.07
IV 16,822 54.22
Total  Number

of Firms




From the above, members can judge that:-

1)  How Regulators are making policies against the interest of Small firms.

2) The panel did not show how many firms are under Rest.

3) Category is being awarded on the basis of number of partners and not on the basis of experience e.g.  if a proprietor of firm has 25 years of experience then his firm’s category is 4 while partnership firm is  being awarded category 3 if its partners have lesser number of experience.

4) 72563 Branches of 25 nationalized banks were available for Audit during 2012-13 while number of branches got Audited by Banks during that year was 32006 only when Audit limit of Bank Branches   was increased from Rs. 5 Crores to Rs. 20 crore.

All Firms can be accommodated if banks make equal distribution of work.

There is also need to reduce the limit to Rs. 5 crore as there may be danger of window dressing through Small Branches which regulators have cleverly left them out of preview from Statutory Audit.

Data Compiled by :- CA. Anand Parkash (FCA, B.Com) 
Presented         by :- CA. Ankit Aggarwal (ACA, CS, CMA, DISA, B.Com)
Analyzed           by :- CA. Sahil Aggarwal (ACA)

More Under CA, CS, CMA

Posted Under

Category : CA, CS, CMA (3623)
Type : Articles (15962)
Tags : Empanelment (491)

0 responses to “Analysis Of Draft Bank Branch Audit Panel 2013-14 Of ICAI”

  1. parkash anand says:

    Excellent job. These person are raising voice in the interest of profession. I fully support.


    We are governing everybody but we dont know our governance.We are called PARTNERS IN SELF BUILDING AND NOT NATION BUILDING”

  3. CA. M. Lakshmanan says:

    Whether proper weightage is given to the number of partners is doubtful because a firm which has four partners and in category II, though gets big branches, fees wise it is always lesser per partner than the fees received by proprietary concerns/ firms with two partners.

  4. CA MAHESH GARG says:

    keep it up

  5. CA. Subhash Chandra Podder says:

    I appreciate yours efforts for the analysis of Draft Bank Branch auditor Panel.
    I fully appreciate the information/ opinion cited given in para 1 to 4, and the concluded paras are touch me upon. As I am in the Active profession since 1970 have observed many things regarding conducting Bank audit either in the Capacity as Central Statutory Auditors or as a branch auditor . Our performance not very satisfactory . How the Council members will interact with the Regulators are now the basic things/ Matters .
    CA. Subhash Chandra Podder, FCA , 12073

  6. A.K.SHAH says:

    Dear Anand, Ankit and Sahil,
    Congratulations for such a thread-bear analysis.
    What is needed now is to bring to the notice of OUR SENIOR PROFESSIONAL Friends, in Delhi/ Mumbai etc…who always seek supports/vote from (this eligible/neglected experienced) members, who are now ignored ?
    Surprisingly, firms working for Branch Audits since last 10/15 years efficiently as proprietor… are conveniently set a side…?
    I hope Chairman/s of ICAI Committee/s will take interest…

  7. Shailesh says:

    Hello All,

    what anand , ankit and sahil say is defintely true. Policies are being framed against the SMEs.
    Also i heard about that those proprietory firms who dont have paid CA with them will not be alloted bank audits from this year onwards.Please correct me if i am wrong.
    If its true,then i think, few will be benefitted more at the cost of most of others.
    Also from the point of view of equitable distribution of work amongst the firms of all sizes, it would be a big injustice towards proprietory firms.


  8. Sheetal Gadiya says:

    Dear Anand, Ankit and Sahil,

    Seriously good work,& has been well analysed.

    Policy Makers & Institute should work on this facts & clarify members.

    We support this.

  9. CA Sushil Jethani says:

    Everybody is aware of the status of the small firms,
    but presentation of facts in this manner is really

  10. jeetendra says:

    good analysis
    one thing is for sure that all policies are against small firms.

  11. Rohan says:

    Members should support this man who is raising voice in the interest of profession on the basis of facts and demand transparency from ICAI

  12. Devang says:

    Dear Anand, Ankit and Sahil,

    Very much appreicated work.

    I definately belive that this is against SME’s

    Kind Regards
    CA Devang.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *