The Disciplinary Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) has reprimanded CA. Lukesh Kumar Sethi for professional misconduct. The complaint, filed by the Deputy Registrar of Companies, alleged that the CA had adopted a casual approach while certifying Form INC-22. The Committee found that Sethi had declared a personal visit to a company’s registered office and verified its existence, despite an unsigned rent agreement being uploaded. Furthermore, he could not provide documentary evidence of his visit or a valid rent agreement for subsequent years. The committee determined that he failed to meet the requirements of Section 12 of the Companies Act, 2013, and Rule 25 of the Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014, thereby establishing professional misconduct under Item (7) of Part (I) of the Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. The committee, after considering his representations, decided that a reprimand was an appropriate punishment.
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. OF INVESTIGATIONS OF PROFESSIONALt AND OTHER MISCONDUCT AND CONDUCT OF CASES) RULES, 2007.
File No: [PR/G/284/22/DD/199/2022/DC/1799/2023]
In the matter of:
Shri Nitin Phartyal, Dy. ROC,
Versus
CA. Lukesh Kumar Sethi
MEMBERS PRESENT:
1. CA. Ranjeet Kumar Agarwal, Presiding Officer (In person)
2. Ms. Dakshita Das, I.R.A.S. (Retd.), Government Nominee (Through VC)
3. CA. MangeshP Kinare, Member (In person)
4. Abhay Chhajed, Member (In person)
DATE OF HEARING :11th DECEMBER 2024
DATE OF ORDER : 20thJanuary 2024
1. That vide Findings dated 15.10.2024 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. Lukesh Kumar Sethi (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 artered Accountants Act, 1949.
2. That pursuant to the said Findings, an action under Section 218(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 11th December 2024.
3. The Committee noted that on the date of the hearing on 11.thDecember 2024, the Respondent was present through video conferencing. The Respondent verbally reiterated his written representation dated 04th November 2024 made by him on the Findings of the Committee, which, inter alia, are given as under:-
(a) Promoters of the Company had submitted two sets of documents; one set was incomplete (not signed by lessee) and other set was complete (signed by both parties).
(b) While attaching the rent agreement with Form INC — 22, his staff had uploaded an unsigned rent agreement.
(c) It was an inadvertent mistake that unsinged rent agreement was uploaded and same had come to notice, when subject complaint was filed by the Registrar of Companies.
(d) As regards the rent agreement for the subsequent two years, he tried to reach out to the Directors of the Company but was unsuccessful. Thereafter, he approached the authorized representative of M/s. Fume Infotech Private Limited (i.e. Lessor), who has given the declaration to the Respondent regarding existence of the Company at its registered office address at Plot No. 76D Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurugram, Haryana, India — 122001 (The Respondent brought on the record the copy of such declaration vide email dated 06thNovember 2024).
(e) The Respondent had personally visited at Plot No. 76D Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurugram, Haryana, India – 122001 and had met Mr. Jatin Nagpal, landlord/owner of the premises, before filing of INC-22 with ROC.
(f) The Respondent could not keep any proof or evidence of his visit to the registered office of the Company, but Mr. Jatin Nagpal was present during his personal visit to the premises.
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, the Committee observed that the Respondent had adopted casual approach while certifying Form INC-22, wherein he had given a declaration to have personally visited the proposed registered office, though no valid rent agreement was entered into by the Company on said date. Further, the Respondent failed to bring on record the rent agreement(s) of subsequent years. Further, he could not substantiate the fact with documentary evidence that he had personally visited and verified the registered office of the Company and that the registered office of the Company actually existed at the given address. The Committee thus observed that there was failure on the part of the ReSpondent for not verifying the requirements of provisions of Section 12 of the Companies Act) 2013 read with Rule 25 of the Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014. Therefore, the Professional Misconduct on the part of the Respondent is clearly established as spelt out in the Committee’s Findings dated 15th October 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. Lukesh Kumar Sethi , be REPRIMANDED, under Section 21B(3)(a) of the Chartered Accountants Act,1949.
Sd/-
(CA. RANJEET KUMAR AGARWAL)
PRESIDING OFFICER.
Sd/-
(MS. DAKSHITA DAS,I.R.A.S.{RETD.})
GOVERNMENT NOMINEE
Sd/-
(CA. MANGESH P KINARE)
MEMBER
Sd/-
(CA. ABHAY CHHAJED)
MEMBER
