The Disciplinary Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) has reprimanded CA Rounak Kumar Bansal (Membership No. 554881) for professional misconduct. The case was brought forward by the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana. The committee’s findings, dated October 10, 2024, concluded that the Chartered Accountant was guilty of misconduct under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. Specifically, the CA was found to have made false declarations in Form SPICe+ by certifying that he had personally visited the company’s proposed registered office and that the subscribers to the Memorandum and Articles of Association had signed in his presence. During the hearing on January 6, 2025, the CA admitted to his mistakes, stating he had not physically visited the premises. He also mentioned that he had surrendered his Certificate of Practice and was no longer in the profession. Given the contradictory statements and the clear violation of Rule 13 of the Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014, the committee determined that a reprimand was an appropriate punishment. Consequently, an order was issued on January 20, 2025, to formally reprimand the CA under Section 21B(3)(a) of the Act.
THE INSUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF NDIA
(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 213(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/297/22/DD/206/2022/DC/1720/20231]
In the matter of:
The Registrar of Companies,
Versus
CA. Rounak Kumar Bansal
MEMBERS PRESENT:
1. Ranjeet Kumar Agarwal, Presiding Officer (In person)
2. Shri Jiwesh Nandan, I.A.S (Retd.), Government Nominee (In person)
3. Dakshita Das, I.R.A.S. (Retd.), Government Nominee (Through VC)
4. Mangesh P Kinare, Member (In person)
5. Abhay Chhajed, Member (In person)
DATE OF HEARING : 06th January 2025
DATE OF ORDER : 20th January 2025
1. That vide Findings dated 10.10.2024 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 Rounak Kumar Bansal (hereinafter referred to as the “Respondent”) is GUILTY of Professional Misconduct falling within the meaning of Item (7) of Part (I) of the Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.
2. That pursuant to the said Findings, an action under Section 21B(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 06thJanuary 2025.
3. The Committee noted that on the date of the hearing on 06thJanuary 2025, the Respondent was present through video conferencing. During the hearing, the Respondent accepted his mistake that he did not personally visit the premise of the proposed registered office of the Company and sought leniency in the matter. He further submitted that he has surrendered his Certificate of Practice, and he is no longer in practice.
4. The Committee considered the reasoning as contained in the Findings holding the Respondent ‘Guilty’ of Professional Misconduct vis-à-vis verbal representation of the Respondent.
5. Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, material on record including verbal representation of the Respondent on the Findings, the Committee noted that the Respondent in his submissions at hearing stage stated that it is not feasible for a professional to visit registered office of a Company and on other side; he had made declaration and certification in Form SPICe+ that he had personally visited the premises of the proposed registered office of the Company, which itself is contradictory and a wrong declaration. Now, the Respondent has admitted that he had not visited the registered office of the Company physically. The Committee also noted that the subscribers to the Memorandum of Association (MOA) and Articles of Association (AOA) had not signed the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association in his presence while he has given a declaration that subscribers to MOA and AOA has signed before him. Thus, the Committee was of the view that. the Respondent has given wrong declaration and the said act of the Respondent is in violation of the requirement of Rule 13 of the Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014.
6. Hence, the Professional Misconduct on the part of the Respondent is clearly established as spelt out in the Committee’s Findings dated 10thOctober 2024 which is to be read in consonance with the instant Order being passed in the case.
7. 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 Misconduct.
8. Thus, the Committee ordered that the Respondent i.e., CA. Rounak Kumar Bansal, be REPRIMANDED under Section 21B(3)(a) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.
Sd/-
(CA. RANJEET KUMAR AGARWAL)
PRESIDING OFFICER
Sd/-
{SHRI JIWESH NANDAN, I.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
