CA will be guilty to write “To Whom It May Concern” at the time of CA certification

H.G. Nagaraju Vs CA. Lingaraj M. Pujari (M.No.225579) (ICAI)

Recently, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) has concluded a disciplinary proceeding involving CA Lingaraj M. Pujari, concerning a certificate issued by him.

• The Disciplinary Committee of ICAI, in the case of Shri H.G. Nagaraju Vs. CA. Lingaraj M. Pujari, has determined that CA Lingaraj M. Pujari has been found guilty of “Other Misconduct” as defined under Item (2) of Part-IV of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, in conjunction with Section 22 of the said Act.
• This decision was based on a careful review of all relevant information, including CA Lingaraj M. Pujari’s oral and written submissions.
• The case revolved around CA Lingaraj M. Pujari’s issuance of a certificate dated 31st January 2017, wherein he certified certain expenditures for the financial years 2011-12 to 2016-17. This certificate was issued without supporting documentation or approvals and was not explicitly addressed to a specific entity or individual; instead, it bore the phrase “To Whomsoever It May Concern.”
• ICAI’s “Guidance Note on Reports or Certificates for Special Purposes” specifies that such certificates should identify the addressee. While it acknowledges that in certain cases, certificates may be intended for other unidentified users, it was noted that in this instance, CA Lingaraj M. Pujari had been engaged by the company, yet the certificate was not addressed to the company but to unidentified users. This raised concerns about the purpose and clarity of the certificate.
• Upon examination of the certificate’s content, it became apparent that a significant portion of the unapproved entries pertained to the complainant. This led the Board to conclude that CA Lingaraj M. Pujari’s issuance of a certificate addressed to unidentified users suggested collusion with other directors of the company. It was expected that CA Lingaraj M. Pujari would have conducted a diligent and impartial examination of the facts and data, which was lacking in this case. This conduct, compromising the integrity of the certificate, was considered unbecoming of a Chartered Accountant and detrimental to the reputation of the profession.

Consequently, the Board found CA Lingaraj M. Pujari guilty of “Other Misconduct” as described in Item (2) of Part-IV of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, in conjunction with Section 22 of the Act.