Mr. Jay is a practicing Chartered Accountant working as proprietor of M/s Adhya & Co. He went abroad for 4 months. He delegated the authority to…

CA Final · Advanced Auditing, Assurance and Professional Ethics · MTP · November 2024
Mr. Jay is a practicing Chartered Accountant working as proprietor of M/s Adhya & Co. He went abroad for 4 months. He delegated the authority to Mr. Vijay a Chartered Accountant his employee for taking care of routine matters of his office. During his absence, Mr. Vijay has conducted the under mentioned jobs in the name of M/s Adhya & Co. (i) Asking for information or issue of questionnaire. (ii) Initiating and stamping of vouchers and of schedules prepared for the purpose of audit. (iii) Acknowledging and carrying on routine correspondence with clients. Comment on eligibility of Mr. Vijay for conducting such jobs in name of M/s Adhya & Co. and liability of Mr. Jay under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

Suggested Answer and Working Notes:

Delegation of Authority to the Employee: As per Clause (12) of Part I of the First Schedule of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, a Chartered Accountant in practice is deemed to be guilty of professional misconduct "if he allows a person not being a member of the Institute in practice or a member not being his partner to sign on his behalf or on behalf of his firm, any balance sheet, profit and loss account, report or financial statements". In this case CA Jay proprietor of M/s Adhya & Co., went to abroad and delegated the authority to another Chartered Accountant Mr. Vijay, his employee, for taking care of routine matters of his office who is not a partner but a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. The Council has clarified that the power to sign routine documents on which a professional opinion or authentication is not required to be expressed may be delegated and such delegation will not attract provisions of this clause. In the given case, Mr. Vijay, a Chartered Accountant being employee of M/s Adhya & Co. has asked for information or issued questionnaire. He has also proceeded for initiating and stamping of vouchers and of schedules prepared for the purpose of audit. Apart from the same, he acknowledged and carried out routine correspondence with clients. Here Vijay is right in doing the same, since the same falls under routine work which can be delegated by the auditor. Therefore, there is no misconduct in this case as per Clause (12) of Part I of First Schedule to the Act.

Topics: Professional Ethics & Liabilities of Auditors

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

Related Questions in this Topic