M/s FILE & Co. is a firm of Chartered Accountants consisting of 12 partners based at Mumbai. The audit firm is engaged in the audit of DEAF Ltd.…

CA Final · Advanced Auditing, Assurance and Professional Ethics · PYQS · May 2025
M/s FILE & Co. is a firm of Chartered Accountants consisting of 12 partners based at Mumbai. The audit firm is engaged in the audit of DEAF Ltd. for the financial year 2024-2025 for which CA L is the engagement partner. During the course of the audit of DEAF Ltd., the following misstatements were identified: I. A calculation error in the depreciation schedule amounting to 1 lakh. II. Management's estimate regarding inventory valuation seemed aggressive, leading to an overstatement of 5 lakhs, which the auditor deemed unreasonable. III. A sample audit revealed an error in sales invoices amounting to 60,000 and the population of similar invoices totalled 1 crore. The auditor's best estimate of misstatement in population identified in the samples to the entire population is 6 lakhs. CA L has determined a threshold of 75,000 as the amount below which misstatements would be considered clearly trivial. Further: (i) The auditor communicated with those charged with governance regarding uncorrected misstatements and their effect and requested to them that uncorrected misstatements be corrected. (ii) The management corrected the inventory valuation issue but did not correct the depreciation error or the error in sales invoices amounting to 60,000, considering the immateriality. (iii) After evaluating the effect of identified misstatements on the audit and of uncorrected misstatements, if any, on the financial statements, CA L is concerned on the documentation aspect with reference to the relevant Standard on Auditing. M/s FILE & Co. is also the statutory auditors of Purple Pvt. Ltd., a manufacturing company, which has been severely impacted by economic downturns and operational inefficiencies. The company's cash flow statements reveal recurring negative cash flows, and its interim financial statements show a significant decline in profitability. Additionally, Purple Pvt. Ltd. has defaulted on loan covenants, and on-going litigation poses a risk of substantial financial liabilities. Management has stated their plans to mitigate these challenges by restructuring debt, securing additional funding from related parties, and reducing operational costs. However, no formal documentation supporting these plans has been provided yet. M/s FILE & Co. have identified the events and conditions in the case of Purple Pvt. Ltd. which cast significant doubt on the entity's ability to continue as a Going Concern, and auditor needs to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to determine whether or not material uncertainty exists and gather evidence including of mitigating factors. M/s FILE & Co. is planning to perform the following additional procedures: (i) As long as management provides a representation letter stating their plans to address financing difficulties the auditor is not bound by the terms of breached loan agreements. (ii) Confirm the existence, legality, and enforceability of arrangements to provide or maintain financial support, both from related/third parties and the assessment of the financial ability of such parties to provide the promised support as immaterial. (iii) Evaluate the assumptions underlying cash flow, profit, and other relevant forecasts, considering historical accuracy and current market conditions. (iv) Considering whether existing facts and information have become available since the date of management's initial assessment that could impact the going concern conclusion. (v) Review minutes of meetings of shareholders, those charged with governance, and relevant committees for references to financial difficulties, plans for mitigating actions, or discussions on securing additional funding. (vi) If management has not yet performed an assessment, the entity is treated as not a going concern and issue a modified audit opinion without further evidence. M/s FILE & Co. the statutory auditors of Crypto Ltd., a non-listed public company, carrying out manufacturing activity, have been identified for their quality review based upon risk based approach. However, Crypto Ltd. is neither covered under Rule 3 of NFRA Rules, 2018 nor referred to QRB by NFRA. The Quality Review Board (QRB) is entrusted with conducting a quality review of M/s FILE & Co.'s audit services. During the review, QRB identifies non-compliance with Standards on Auditing (SAs) in areas related to engagement documentation and independence. Meanwhile, NFRA receives a whistle blower complaint regarding audit irregularities in Glitch Ltd., a listed company, audited by FILE & Co. M/s FILE & Co. was charged with failure to identify related parties and transactions with them. Glitch Ltd. has made 95% of sales to a related party which was not identified as such in the annual report of the company. NFRA initiates an investigation under Section 132(4) of the Companies Act, 2013.
(A) (A) The 1 lakh error in depreciation schedule qualifies as a judgemental misstatement. Management's estimate regarding inventory, leading to an overstatement of 5 lakhs, which the auditor deemed unreasonable does not qualify as a misstatement. A sample audit revealed an error in sales invoices amounting to 60,000 is a factual misstatement.
(B) (B) The 1 lakh error in the depreciation schedule is a judgemental misstatement. The inventory valuation overstatement of 5 lakhs is a factual misstatement. The invoice-related error does not qualify as a misstatement as the individual error is below the trivial threshold.
(C) (C) The 1 lakh error in the depreciation schedule is a factual misstatement. The inventory valuation overstatement of 5 lakhs is a projected misstatement. The auditor's best estimate of misstatement of population is a judgemental misstatement.
(D) (D) The 1 lakh error in the depreciation schedule is a factual misstatement. The inventory valuation overstatement of 5 lakhs is a judgmental misstatement. The auditor's best estimate of misstatement of 6 lakhs to entire population is a projected misstatement.

Suggested Answer and Working Notes:

Correct Answer: Option (D)

(D) The 1 lakh error in the depreciation schedule is a factual misstatement. The inventory valuation overstatement of 5 lakhs is a judgmental misstatement. The auditor's best estimate of misstatement of 6 lakhs to entire population is a projected misstatement.

Topics: Standard on Auditing (SA), Quality Control, Audit Evidence

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

Related Questions in this Topic