CA Ram and CA Lakshman are close friends and are into practice as sole proprietors. Both decided to expand their focus on taking up more assignments…

CA Final · Advanced Auditing, Assurance and Professional Ethics · MTP · November 2024
CA Ram and CA Lakshman are close friends and are into practice as sole proprietors. Both decided to expand their focus on taking up more assignments in the field of Goods & Services Tax. On back of the same, they both decided to conduct a joint training session for their clients on GST and decided to share the total fee collected thereof. They invited another CA from their professional circle to join the initiative, however, the person declined the same informing that this act was against professional ethics and will lead to disciplinary action from ICAI. The partner of M/s AK & Associates is a close friend of CA Ram. The firm was involved in an audit of a listed company which was required to submit Business Responsibility and Sustainability Report (BRSR). The company being audited was into thermal energy production business in India. They had submitted details about the total emissions from its production outlets during the year and a detailed energy consumption plan which it had devised for the upcoming years. Since CA Ram had undergone a course on Sustainability Reporting, he was approached for getting advice on what needs to be reported in the BRSR of the company. As a gesture for helping the firm, the partner of the firm suggested CA Ram's name to the post of becoming a member in the Board of Management of KYC Co-operative Bank, a Primary (Urban) Co-operative Bank and a client of AK & Associates. Upon hearing the same, CA Lakshman requested Ram not to take up the post as it would lead to professional misconduct. CA Ram was acting as an internal auditor of PL Technologies Private Limited. The company decided to raise more funds for expanding its business across the country by including new age technological services such as Al. Ram was observing the business model and the way in which the company was operating for quite some time, and he was keen on investing in the company. As a result, he decided to invest in the company's shares and ended up acquiring 9.75% of the shares (total face value of the shares acquired was - 4.75 lakhs) of the company during the financial year. CA Lakshman got to know about this information, and he immediately urged Ram to resign from the being the internal auditor of PL Technologies Private Limited, for the reason that an internal auditor cannot hold any shares in the company, and it will lead to professional misconduct and also failure to comply with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1949. However, Ram did not accept the argument of Lakshman, and he said that nothing will happen because of him acquiring 9.75% shares in the company and continuing to act as its internal auditor. CA Lakshman was the statutory auditor for GH Finance Private Limited, a NBFC head quartered in India. The company's treasury department had undergone changes in the recent past and the current set of team members did not have much experience in handling the treasury functions. Due to this situation, the company reached out to their auditor CA Lakshman who was also into equity research advisory apart from CA practice, to support the company and the members of its treasury department for a brief period by giving Investment Advisory Services, to ensure efficient utilization and management of the funds of the company. Before committing anything on the offer, CA Lakshman wanted to consult with CA Ram as to whether the service requested by the NBFC can be performed by him.
(A) (A) Yes, as per clause 2 of Part I of First Schedule, a CA in practice is allowed only to pay / share the commission or brokerage or profits from his professional business only with another practicing CA It does not allow sharing of any fee collected from joint training sessions. Hence both CA Ram & Lakshman are guilty of professional misconduct.
(B) (B) Yes, CA Ram & Lakshman will be held guilty of professional misconduct for conducting the joint training session on GST as per part IV (other misconduct) of the First Schedule of the Chartered Accountants Act 1949.
(C) (C) Yes, this is a case of solicitation of client whereby, CA Ram can influence clients of CA Lakshman and vice-versa. Hence the conduct of the joint training session will lead to being guilty of professional misconduct as per clause 6 of Part I of First Schedule.
(D) (D) No, as per the recent decisions of Ethical Standards Board, it is permissible for 2 or more CA in practice collectively to have joint training session for their clients on GST, and share the fee collected from the clients thereof.

Suggested Answer and Working Notes:

Correct Answer: Option (D)

(D) No, as per the recent decisions of Ethical Standards Board, it is permissible for 2 or more CA in practice collectively to have joint training session for their clients on GST, and share the fee collected from the clients thereof.

Topics: Professional Ethics & Liabilities of Auditors, Group Audits

Open in Interactive Practice Hub · Full Practice Hub · Chapter Weightage · More in this subject

Related Questions in this Topic