Persons covered for reporting on fraud
Without causing harm to anything contained in this section, if an auditor of a company, in the course of the performance of his duties as auditor, has reason to believe that an offence involving fraud is being or has been committed against the company by officers or employees of the company, he shall immediately report the matter to the Central Government within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed.
The statutory auditors of the company are required to report under the same. Likewise, the cost accountant in practice, conducting cost audit under Section 148 of the Act; and to the company secretary in practice, conducting secretarial audit under Section 204 of the act are also required to report the same.
It needs to be noted that internal auditors covered under Section 138 are not specified as persons who are required to report under Section 143(12).
The provisions of this section shall also require reporting by a branch auditor appointed under Section 139 to the extent it relates to the concerned branch.
However, the provisions of Section 143(12) do not apply to other professionals who are rendering other services to the company.
For example, Section 143(12) does not apply to auditors appointed under other statutes for rendering other services such as tax auditor appointed for audit under Income-tax Act; Sales Tax or VAT auditors appointed for audit under the respective Sales Tax or VAT legislations.
Section 143(12) requires an auditor to report on fraud if in the course of performance of his duties as an auditor, the auditor has reason to believe that an offence involving fraud is being or has been committed against the company by its officers or employees.
The definition of fraud as per SA 240 and the explanation of fraud as per Section 447 of the 2013 Act are similar, except that under Section 447, fraud includes ‘acts with an intent to injure the interests of the company or its shareholders or its creditors or any other person, whether or not there is any wrongful gain or wrongful loss.’
However, an auditor may not be able to detect acts that have intent to injure the interests of the company or cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss, unless the financial effects of such acts are reflected in the books of account/financial statements of the company.
Example, if an employee is alleged to be carrying on business parallel to the company’s business and has been diverting customer orders to his company, the auditor may not be able to detect the same since such sales transactions are not recorded in the books of the company.
Therefore, the auditor shall consider the requirements of the SAs, insofar as it relates to the risk of fraud, including the definition of fraud as stated in SA 240, in planning and performing his audit procedures in an audit of financial statements to address the risk of material misstatement due to fraud.
(Author can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org)
Do you think CBDT should extend Tax Audit Report and relevant ITR Due Date? Please Comment, Vote, Retweet and Like.— Tax Guru (@taxguru_in) September 18, 2018