Respected CA Manoj Fadnis

President ,ICAI , New Delhi

Ref; kindly clarify the logic behind four Concurrent audits per member. Kindly take back the decision to allow equal distribution of work in the hands of small partnership firms and sole proprietorship firms.

Dear Sir,

The decision on concurrent audit ceiling per member is fixed by council in its 342nd meeting recently held at HQ Delhi. It was claimed  as ICAI’s endeavour to strengthen policies and procedures that enable members to render quality services. In a separate manner,( Why is this separate)  the Council decided to fix limit on concurrent audit of banks at 4 audits per member per year. If this is so, it’s going to be disastrous for the fraternity though you claimed that these limits are carefully kept to enable members to devote more time thereby improving the quality of work. It’s illogical. There is also no point about the date of implementation i.e 1.1.2016 when the new council shall be ready to sworn. What’s a politics in to it ?

 It is also depressed to read your communication about concurrent limit with no mention about any change in council stand which debars sole proprietor for concurrent audit. It’s totally unfair, unjust and arbitrary decision. It’s against the sole proprietorship as well as small partnership firms as big partnership firms shall swallow the total opportunity available on this front.

How can council work against the equal distribution of audit assignments and how ICAI Council introduced the ceiling @ 4 audit per member for concurrent audit of banks. The decision is bad and should be taken back and a logical decision be taken to benefit all the practicing chartered accountants irrespective of their status as sole proprietary/ partnership. This limit is too high and a rational decision should be taken for the same.

In my opinion, a proprietary concern be allowed to take up one 1 bank branch concurrent audit at a time. However, if such proprietary concern has a full time paid CA. employee for a period of 12 months or more, immediately precedes the date of appointment as a concurrent auditor, then the proprietary concern be allowed to take one more branch concurrent audit per such paid CA. employee.

In case of partnership firms, the firm be allowed to take one concurrent audit per partner of firm and not more than four concurrent audits on overall basis. As per my knowledge Central Council Meeting of the ICAI held on Nov. 20th and 21st, 2014 considered the above mention formula but rejected the same with a positive note to have a ceiling of the concurrent audit.

Now the ceiling of 4 Concurrent audits per member is unjust, illogical and deserves to be knocked out. I am afraid the ceiling of four concurrent audits per member has no merit or meaning, rather it shall concentrate the concurrent audits to few of the firms. Kindly take a corrective decision and announce the policy for equal distribution of firms.

Thanking you,

Sincerely Your

CA AMRESH VASHISHT, Meerut

(About the Author- Author was Member of ICAI- Regional Research Committee 2013-14 and ICAI- Committee For Direct Taxes 2011-12 and can be reached at email amresh_vashisht@yahoo.com or on phone Phone: 0 1 2 1-2 6 6 1 9 4 6. Cell: 9 8 3 7 5 1 5 4 3 2 having office at 1 1 5, Chappel Street, Meerut Cantt, UP, INDIA).

More Under CA, CS, CMA

Posted Under

Category : CA, CS, CMA (3652)
Type : Articles (16256)
Tags : CA Amresh Vashisht (60) ICAI (2539)

0 responses to “Unjustified limits of Concurrent Audits ; Take back this black resolution”

  1. Ca Gangji says:

    I agree,
    it is call of time there is no eqallity in work allotment. small firms not getting work profession is under financial crisis.
    ICAI should protect the fertinity.
    one ca one concurrent audit should be the limit.
    Every ca has right to get work.

  2. prasant kapadia says:

    lets raise this point to president in collective manner, as the voice of majority of icai member and firms which is individual or proprietorship firm must reach.

  3. K.BALASUBRAMANIAN says:

    The decision of the institute is totally unfair and unjustifiable. If a member is well experienced/well exposed to concurrent audits of Banks and he is the sole proprietor, he will not be considered as per the present arrangement. This is not palatable and impressive and sole proprietorship concerns/small partnership firms are being killed by our venerated Institute. In that event, due importance is given to no. of partners and not to the members who are very conversant and experts in this field. I am really worried about the existing policies of the institute, wherein, due weight age is not being given to the experience/expertise of individuals. Such policies are really detrimental to the interest of the members and put them to tremendous hard ship. Hence, the Institute should reconsider the decision and ensure that all members are equally given importance and treated on par.

  4. S. Rajagopalan says:

    Fully agree. Now a days banks insist that the auditor should be present for 21 days a month and a certificate from the bank manager needs to be enclosed.How can a person be present in 4 places for about 15 to 21 days a month and do quality work. The whole system stinks and is in favour of big firms and totally against small firms and auditors in smaller towns.

  5. Ca Mahesh Kumar Goyal says:

    I Fully agree with your opinion sir.because if limit fix then no chance available for newly ca

  6. Jeetendra Thani says:

    agree with Amresh Ji…limit must be max 4 audits per firm…

  7. ca Rajiv Bansal says:

    I completely agree with your opinion sir.
    Institute must reconsider its decision if it really wants to benefit small firms

  8. CA MBG Tilak says:

    I agree with the considered views of CA AMRESH VASHISHTJI, which are very well, carefully articulated.
    In my opinion, in fact Concurrent Audits to large extent ought to be earmarked exclusively to Proprietory or small partnership firms ( say only 2 or 3 members) & not to big firms ,as a part & parcel of capacity building measures of small & medium CA firms by ICAI.

  9. shailesh jhamad says:

    in th matter it is suugested that a proprietorship firm is also made available for this work at present the same is not being done so keeping inview such thing should be made each member is allowed to have 4 concurrent audit is not a good decision the interest of sole proprietorship will be harassed yes a frim of Ca can carry out 4 audits at a time not for per memebr so matter of equal distribution should be made if possible otherwise small practioner those having already a less chance will be harassed.

  10. Shankeran says:

    Very very practical suggestion. This amendment of restriction is not intended to help to improve the profession, how can a member in partnership would be able to devote full month of quality time among four bank branches. The suggestion to have one branch per member is just and correct

  11. RAJESH CHANDER GUPTA says:

    Can anybody provide data on the basis of which this ceiling limit has been worked out.
    In fact limit should be one audit per member and four for firms having more than four partners. Banks give large branches to big partnership firms and as such cap is justified.

  12. Abhijit Banerjee says:

    Dear sir,

    great work.

    let us hope ICAI will think about the matter

  13. krunal says:

    Very true said, sir.

    This type of circulars lead to concentration of work with big firms and highly injustice to small proprietorship / partnership firms.

    If ICAI has issued CA degree to all the members then why only big partnership firms should have right to apply for bank audits and PSU audits. This leads to set back for newly qualified chartered accountants.

  14. CA C K BAJPAI says:

    Thanks Mr.Vashisht for your efforts. however We would like to know that what is the way to put such proposal in council meeting and what efforts has been made by you in such meeting if it can be made.

  15. Rajiv Agrawal says:

    I too agree with you Sir. This is very-much unjust.

  16. Sheetal Gadiya says:

    Points well raised Sir.
    Thumbs up.

  17. C A Devamg Sadrani says:

    I am completely with the reply given by Mr Amresh. One member and four Concurrent Audit ? Will it be justified ?? The report that would be given by the member will show our professional flavour ? How can four audts be justified by a single member ?? This decision needs to be reconsidered.

    CA Devang Sadrani.
    Vadodara

  18. P G Parikh says:

    Well written & well said sir

  19. CA. Subhash Chandra Podder says:

    The Present Council of Ministers ( Members ) of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India doing all unjust activities as like as process of allotments of audit , be it may central statutory audit, Bank Branch audit, Concurrent audit, Land Scams, pursuing
    members to take/ undergone training on different subjects as like as Concurrent audit, revenue audit, tax audit, forex services , for what making money out of it. Now the election are knocking at the door , they will seek all round BLESSINGS even from Junior Members to win over Vote, and earn more money and travelled all over India and aboard, opening branches , chapters in the remote villages lanes and bylanes on a city,
    Lined up for lighting for the events, catching photographs and exhibited in the Prominent places in our Journal ( The Chartered Accountants – journal ) , pass resolutions not to fit for contesting in Central Council not more than one Term that is for the years of three.
    Why we have been neglected by all the Regulators , and quality of audit, How can it be possible ? Most of the firms are sleeping partners , See How many Members are devoted in Unstructured Learning and submitted to Regional councils . Verify from the list hosted in CPE- PDC portals , Conducting seminars on the same subject on the same day by many study circles , meaning what ? To earn more money by those study centres . Not Timely hosted CPE hours by PUO. How mush money are being spend after Electing Council Members .
    The entire system of education and training need to be changed by the Newly elected Members ( 2016-2019 ) ,
    I am in the profession more than 45 years ,and have disgusted with the Councils ( CENTRAL and REGIONAL ) . Why peer review failed ? Quality review failed ,
    Now Election is coming ( 2016 ) the different committees of Central Council are very busy in hosting lectures before catv.com
    Why readers write in CA Journal has been abolished ?
    Why council members are not able to talk with Known./ unknown Members switched off their Mobile Nos .
    They lost their moral to have talks with members . Why in a seminar council members are not present till the end of the events , why they are entitled to claim structed learning for that event by not paying the prescribed fees paid by delegates .
    Why in the month of March 2015, ICAI president told in press conference ” Red Flags of ICAI on PSBs . Why the recommendation / Representations made by Tax Guru and CA SANSAAR founder CA Vivek Khurana and Others was not considered by ICAI past president CA. Raghu. Why RBI have consulted last year list of eligible panel of Auditors ? Cooling Periods of two years extended to four or five years , even though the firms are in the Panel maintained by PDC- ICAI.
    I conducted Bank branch audit bank branch in the year 2010-2011, Applied and in the panel of auditors for the years 2011-2012,2012-2013,2013-2014,2014-2015 ( Cooling period was four years . Why this systems , the matter referred to the President and other Council Members , they don,t have time to give reply, Only one official of PDC- ICAI wrote to me that ” We send lists of Non Continuing auditors to RBI. We do not have any right to say any things about allotment ”
    With Blessings to ALL Council of Ministers ( COUNCIL MEMBERS OF ICAI )

  20. Anamika says:

    Appreciable sir.
    Shall increase the requirements of freshers too!!

  21. Piyush Laddha says:

    Very good reply Sir..

  22. K.PRAKASH says:

    There is nothing unjust about this decision. Four audit per member in a Firm is fair enough a limit and we cann’t do justice to Banks if it is more. If a firm has 2 partners it can still handle 8 assignments concurrently. No better deal can be expected .

  23. CA Kedar Gokhale says:

    Agree with CA AMRESH VASHISHT, Meerut. It is absurd to say that a Proprietary concern should not be allowed to take up Concurrent Audit of a bank. Whether a proprietor or a partner, the person holds same qualification and knowledge as both have passed the same exam conducted by the ICAI. Even in any partnership firm, all partners do not devote any time for bank concurrent audit and it is generally sole responsibility of the junior partners as a bank concurrent audit is less remunerative and more time consuming. On the other hand if concurrent audit is allotted to a senior proprietary concern, the bank will get benefit of his long standing in the practice.

  24. Ramachandran says:

    The ICAI should ensure that each Member should get equal assignments.

  25. YOGESH AGARWAL says:

    Yes…….. as we are fresh practitioner hence we face lot of difficulties faced in each and every field as mentioned u above. hence i agree with sir amresh vashisht nd requested to follow the advice and notice as he mentioned.

  26. CA RAJ KUMAR GOEL says:

    NOW IN INDIA THE INTEREST OF HIGH AND MIGHTY ARE SERVED IN EVERY FIELD. THE ALLOTMENT OF BANK AUDIT’S MODUS OPERANDI IS AN OPEN SECRET. HOW CAN A MEMBER CATER TO 4 BRANCHES WHEN HE IS SUPPOSED 15 DAYS/ MONTH IN EACH BRANCH. COUNCIL NEED TO READ THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTER. EVERY BANK REQUIRES PRESENCE OF THE CA FOR LAST 4-5 DAYS. WE NEED TO CHOOSE BETTER PEOPLE IN THE ENSUING ELECTIONS

  27. Ashok V. Barbole says:

    This seems to be good decision at its face however considering the ground realities it will never help the small firms and proprietorship. What author has suggested is more just and fair and is logical in light of current ground realities. The decision of council in this respect has not changed anything, as if we carry impact analysis of this decision it will be zero. The decision taken by council in this respect seems to be more of political in nature.

    So the article written by author will provide need of introspection in every case when council takes the decision.

    excellent work.

  28. sankar says:

    it must be 2 to 4 per firm depending upon the size of the firm

  29. ca mahesh kadam says:

    Yes sir , I agree with you !!!

  30. Hitarth Dhebar says:

    A very good Decision First time by ICAI.

    A warm welcome to such decisions. This will increase scope of New Qualified Practising CAs and it will shut doors of old traditional CAs relying upon bank Concurrent Audits having numerous branches assignments.

  31. Sanjiv Tamakuwala says:

    Sir You are absolutely right. We have to collectively fight against illogical decision of ICAI

  32. CA. BHARAT DHONDE says:

    You rightly pointed out the discrimination against sole proprietors. SP are struggling and Big Partnerships are swallowing all the business. ICAI has become tools in the hands of vested interests of Big Firms

  33. CA. GOVIND M JOSHI says:

    The Institute should come forward to give priority to Sole Proprietorship CA firms whereby he / she can devote more quality time and render best in class services.

    The views expressed by CA AMRESH VASHISHT, Meerut addresses the plight of sole proprietorship firms and the high level committee at ICAI should really ponder over the views and come out with a revised decision at its earliest consent.

  34. CA.S.Balaji says:

    Dear Sir

    I also endorse the views expressed by CA.Amresh Vashisht.
    One Concurrent Audit for one member is a good concept. This will enhance not only the quality of audit, but also it will pave the way for freshers, who opt to practice

    CA.S.Balaji FCA

  35. CA Madhavi Rajesh Condoor says:

    I completely agree with your opinion sir.
    Institute must reconsider its decision if it really wants to benefit small firms

  36. Thampy says:

    Can a surgeon be barred by IMA to carry out only specified number of surgery? Putting threshold limit for every sphere of audit would demotive the aspirants of this old profession. It pre supposes that counsel had fixed a passing percentage also

  37. Pratik Jain says:

    Great work,
    And a good reply sir.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *