CA Yatin was the engagement partner for the statutory audit of ABC Ltd., a listed company, for the financial year 2025-26. CA Rohan was appointed as…

As per SA 220, "Quality Control for an Audit of Financial Statement", the engagement partner shall take responsibility for reviews being performed in accordance with the firm's review policies and procedures. For audits of the financial statements of listed entities, the engagement partner shall: Determine that an engagement quality control reviewer has been appointed; Discuss significant matters arising during the audit engagement, including those identified during the engagement quality control review, with the engagement quality control reviewer; and Not date the auditor's report until the completion of the engagement quality control review. Further, the engagement quality control reviewer (EQCR) performs an objective evaluation of the significant judgments made by the engagement team and the conclusions reached in formulating the auditor's report. This includes significant matters such as conclusions relating to material accounting estimates and the appropriateness of the auditor's report. In the given case, CA Rohan, the EQCR, completed the engagement quality control review only on 28th May 2026, whereas CA Yatin had already signed and dated the auditor's report on 25th May 2026. Thus, CA Yatin dated the auditor's report before completion of the required engagement quality control review, which is contrary to SA 220. Further, SA 700, "Forming an Opinion and Reporting on Financial Statements", requires the auditor's report to be dated not earlier than the date on which the auditor has obtained sufficient appropriate evidence on which to base the auditor's opinion on the financial statements. In cases of an audit of financial statements of listed entities where the engagement meets the criteria for an engagement quality control review, such a review assists the auditor in determining whether sufficient appropriate evidence has been obtained and the auditor is able to appropriately conclude before dating the report. The fact that CA Rohan was on leave or that CA Yatin expected no material issue to arise does not justify dating the report before completion of the engagement quality control review. Thus, CA Yatin's approach is not appropriate and is not in accordance with SA 220. The EQCR should have been completed by CA Rohan before the auditor's report was dated. Conducting the engagement quality control review at an appropriate stage and completing it on or before the report date would have enabled significant matters to be resolved to the engagement quality control reviewer's satisfaction before the report was dated.