Unjustified limits of Concurrent Audits ; Take back this black resolution

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.

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


(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).

Read Other Articles of CA Amresh Vashisht

Categories: CA, CS, CMA

View Comments (37)

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

1 2 3 8


Privacy Settings