Chartered Accountant Firms - Tink & Co., Llyods & Co. and Manohar & Co. respectively, were appointed as the joint auditors for…

Chartered Accountant Firms - Tink & Co., Llyods & Co. and Manohar & Co. respectively, were appointed as the joint auditors for conducting the statutory audit for the financial year 2023-24 of Anitya Ltd. They were having difference of opinion with regards to the following points:- S No. Reasons for Differences in Opinion 1 Manohar & Co. wanted to refer to the work of the auditor's expert, Mr. Tanmay in the audit report but the other joint auditors were not agreeing on the same as such reference was not relevant to an understanding in the final audit opinion and also it was not required by any statute. 2 Certain misstatements affected information to be included in 'Management Discussion and Analysis' of Anitya Ltd.'s annual report but as they were lower than materiality set for the financial statements as a whole and so according to the Llyods & Co., there was no requirement to perform any audit procedures on the same but the other joint auditors were not agreeing on the same for the reason that the information may reasonably be expected to influence the economic decisions of the users of the financial statements. 3 For a selected item, the joint auditors were not able to apply the designed audit procedures or suitable alternate procedures and Llyods & Co. wanted to treat that item as a misstatement in the case of test of controls as well as in the case of test of details but the other joint auditors were not agreeing on the said treatment. 4 Manohar & Co. had determined for a particular account balance positive confirmation request was necessary to obtain sufficient and appropriate audit evidence but as it had not obtained such confirmation and alternate audit evidence would not have sufficed its requirements, Manohar & Co. wanted to determine its implications on the audit opinion but the other joint auditors were not agreeing on the same. The differences in opinion in the case of Tink & Co. and Llyods & Co. were resolved but there remained disagreement with the one of the opinions of Manohar & Co. due to which Manohar & Co. expressed its opinion in a separate audit report. Further, Manohar & Co. resigned and filed the required statement with respect to its resignation with Anitya Ltd. as well as the Registrar, respectively. The Board of Directors of Anitya Ltd. appointed Namo & Co. as a joint auditor in place of Manohar & Co. which was later approved by members in the general meeting of the company. Namo & Co. before getting appointed, as aforesaid, had :- (i) Communicated vide a registered post acknowledgment due to the previous joint auditor, Manohar & Co. but the said post was received back with the remarks