The Disciplinary Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) has reprimanded CA. Sudhir Kumar Goel for professional misconduct. The case was brought forward by Ms. Kamna Sharma, Deputy Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana. The committee’s findings, dated October 16, 2024, concluded that CA. Goel was guilty of professional misconduct under Item (7) of Part-I of the Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. The misconduct pertained to the financial statements he had audited. During the hearing on January 6, 2025, CA. Goel admitted to his errors, acknowledging that he had not properly classified loans and advances according to Schedule III of the Companies Act, 2013. The committee noted that while a substantial amount of unsecured loans was obtained from related parties, no disclosures were made as required by Schedule III and AS-18. Based on these findings and CA. Goel’s admission, the committee issued a reprimand as a form of punishment, deeming it a proportionate consequence for his actions.
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 21B(3) OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ACT, 1949 READ WITH RULE 19(1) OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS (PROCEDURE QF. INVESTIGATIONs OF PROFESSIONAL AND OTHER MISCONDUCT AND CONDUCT OF CASES) RULES, 2007.
IPR/G/5/2022/DD/80/2022/DC/1854/2024]
In the matter of:
Ms. Kamna Sharma, Dy. ROC,
Versus
CA. Sudhir Kumar Goel
MEMBERS PRESENT:
1. Shri Jiwesh Nandan, I.A.S (Retd), Presiding Officer and Government Nominee (In person)
2. Dakshita Das, I.R.A.S. (Retd.), Government Nominee (Through VC)
3. Mangesh P Kinare, Member (In person)
4. Abhay Chhajed, Member (In person)
DATE OF HEARING : 06th January 2025
DATE OF ORDER : 20th January 2025
1. That vide Findings dated 16/10/2024 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 CA. Sudhir Kumar Goel (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 216(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 06th January 2025, the Respondent was physically present for the hearing and appeared before it. Thereafter, the Committee asked the Respondent to make submissions in the matter. The Respondent admitted that loans and advances were not classified as per the requirements of Schedule Ill of Companies Act, 2013 and accepted his mistake and sought leniency in the matter.
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 representations of the Respondent on the Findings, the Committee noted that the entire amount of loan was shown as unsecured loan and further, there was substantial increase in the amount of unsecured loan from the previous year. However, further classification of short-term borrowing (unsecured loan) as per the requirement of Schedule III to the Companies Act, 2013 was not given in the financial statements. It was also observed from the details of unsecured loans taken by the Company that, approximately, 97.62% of the unsecured loans were obtained from the related parties but no disclosures of the same as required in terms of Schedule III to the Companies Act, 2013 as well as AS-18 was given by the Respondent in the financial statements of the Company. Hence, the Professional Misconduct on the part of the Respondent is clearly established as spelt out in the Committee’s Findings dated 16/10/2024 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 ·1committee ordered that the Respondent i.e. CA. Sudhir Kumar Goel, 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
