The Disciplinary Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) found CA. Puneet Jain guilty of professional misconduct. The complaint, filed by the Deputy Registrar of Companies, Mumbai, alleged that Jain had certified a document, Form INC-22, for a company despite claiming his signature was forged. The Committee’s findings, dated November 26, 2024, concluded that Jain was guilty under Item (7) of Part-I of the Second Schedule of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. During a hearing on January 6, 2025, Jain reiterated his claim that his signatures were forged and that he had no professional or personal engagement in Mumbai, where the document was filed. He also noted that he had filed a police complaint regarding the forgery. However, the Committee held that the responsibility for safeguarding a digital signature rests with its owner as per the Information Technology Act. The Committee noted that Form INC-22 lacked the mandatory proof of ownership as required by the Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014, and concluded that Jain’s professional misconduct was established. As a result, the Committee issued a reprimand to CA. Puneet Jain.
THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA
(Set up by an Act of Parliament)
[DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE [BENCH-IV (2024-2025)]
[Constituted under Section 2113 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949]
ORDER UNDER SECTION 2113(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/71A/22/PR/G/95/2022(clubbed)/DD/445/2022/DC/1803/2023]
In the matter of:
Shri. Alpesh Marliya,
Dy. Registrar of companies,
On behalf of the Registrar of Companies,
Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
…. Complainant
Versus
CA. Puneet Jain
…. Respondent
MEMBERS PRESENT:
1. Shri Jiwesh Nandan, I.A.S (Retd.), Presiding Officer and Government Nominee (In person)
2. Ms Dakshita Das, I.R.A.S. (Retd.), Government Nominee (Through VC)
3. CA. Mangesh P Kinare, Member (In person)
4. CA. Abhay Chhajed, Member (In person)
DATE OF HEARING : 06th January 2025
DATE OF ORDER : 20th January 2025
1. That vide) Findings dated 26.11.2024 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. Puneet Jain (hereinafter referred to as the “Respondent”) is GUILTY of Professional Misconduct falling within the meaning of Item (7) of Part-I of 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 06th January 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 stated that he had already submitted his written representation dated 07th December 2024 on the Findings of the Committee. He submitted that his signatures have been forged by someone and he had filed police complaint in this regard. The Committee also noted the written representation of the Respondent dated 07th December 2024 on the Findings of the Committee, which, inter alia, are given as under: –
a) His practice is exclusively in Delhi, whereas the alleged Form has been signed in Mumbai, a place where he has no professional or personal engagements. Upon becoming aware of this matter, he promptly filed a police complaint on 27.11.2022.
b) The burden of proving the authenticity of the alleged signature or DSC misuse lies on the Complainant.
c) He was not the auditor of the Company and has not signed any document with respect to this Company since the time of incorporation.
4. The Committee considered the reasoning as contained in the Findings holding the Respondent ‘Guilty’ of Professional Misconduct vis-a-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, material on record including written and verbal representation of the Respondent on the Findings, which. has been already considered by the Committee, it was noted that the responsibility of safekeeping of digital signatureis vests with the owner of the digital signatures as per the provisions of Information Technology Act. the Committee observed that the Respondent had certified Form INC-22 (of M/s. pienance Information Technology Private Limited) but proof of ownership was not attached with Form, which was a mandatory requirement in the view of Rule 25 of the Companies (Incorporation) Rules 2014. Hence, the Professional Misconduct on the part of the Respondent is clearly established as spelt out in the Committee’s Findings dated 26th November 2024 which is to be read in consonance with the instant Order being passed in the case.
6. 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.
7. Thus, the Committee ordered that the Respondent i.e., CA. Puneet Jain , New Delhi be REPRIMANDED under Section 21B(3)(a) of the Chartered Accountants Act 1949.
Sd/-
(SHRI JIWESH NANDAN, I.A.S.{RETD.})
PRESIDING OFFICER AND GOVERNMENT NOMINEE
Sd/-
(MS. DAKSHITA DAS, I.R.A.S.{RETD.})
GOVERNMENT NOMINEE
Sd/-
(CA. MANGESH P KINARE)
MEMBER
Sd/-
(CA. ABHAY CHHAJED)
MEMBER
