In the current write up, we have brought out the penal provisions and the actions which can be initiated by various regulatory and non reg...
In the current write up, we have brought out the penal provisions and the actions which can be initiated by various regulatory and non regulatory authorities in case of any lapse on the part of the Auditors in discharging their duties effectively.
1.Penalty for non‐compliance with any of the provisions contained in Sections 139, 143, 144 and 145 of the Act
Section 139 provides for appointment of auditors, Section 143 deals with power and duties of auditors, Section 144 is on certain services which an auditor cannot render and Section 145 is on signing of audit report and other documents by auditor. Auditor shall be punishable with fine which shall not be less than Rs. 25,000/‐ but which may extend to Rs. 5,00,000/‐. If an auditor has contravened such provisions knowingly or willfully with the intention to deceive the company or its shareholders or creditors or tax authorities, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 1 year andwith fine which shall not be less than Rs. 1,00,000/‐ but which may extend to Rs. 25,00,000/‐.
Convicted auditor shall refund the remuneration received by him from the Company and pay for damages to the company, bodies or authorities or to any other persons for loss arising out of incorrect or misleading statements of particulars made in his audit report.
As per Section 143(12), if in the course of the performance of his duties as auditor, he has reason to believe that an offence involving fraud is being or has been committed against the company by officers or employees of the company, Auditor shall immediately report the matter to the Central Government. In case of any failure on his part to comply with this duty, he shall be punishable with fine which shall not be less than Rs. 1,00,000/‐ but which may extend to Rs. 25,00,000/‐.
3.Penalty for professional misconduct – NFRA ‐ Watch on the watch dogs!
National Financial Review Authority (NFRA) shall have power to investigate, either suo motu or on a reference made to it by the Central Government into the matters of professional or other misconduct committed by any member or firm of chartered accountants, registered under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.Where professional or other misconduct is proved, NFRA shall have the power to make order for—
(A) imposing penalty of—
- (I) not less than Rs. 1,00,000/‐, but which may extend to five times of the fees received, in case of individuals; and
- (II) not less than Rs. 10,00,000/‐, but which may extend to ten times of the fees received, in case of firms;
(B) debarring the member or the firm from engaging himself or itself from practice as member of the Institute of Chartered Accountant of India referred to in clause (e) of sub‐section (1) of section 2 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 for a minimum period of 6 months or for such higher period not exceeding 10 years as may be decided by the NFRA.
4.Action in case of fraud by auditors
“The auditor is a watchdog and not a bloodhound.”
Companies Act, 2013 does not seem to echo this thought!The kind of stringent measures prescribed against auditors gives the picture that the Act indeed expects the auditors to be bloodhounds in discharging their duties and not merely be watch dogs. The Satyam debacle seems to have cast a very gloomy image in the minds of regulators as far the auditors are concerned.
Brief list of action which can be taken agaiast auditors is given as under.
Change of auditors by NCLT:
The NCLT either suo motu or on an application made to it by the Central Government or by any person concerned, if it is satisfied that the auditor of a company has, whether directly or indirectly, acted in a fraudulent manner or abetted or colluded in any fraud by, or in relation to, the company or its directors or officers, it may, by order, direct the company to change its auditors.
Such an auditor, shall not be eligible to be appointed as an auditor of any company for a period of 5 years from the date of passing of the order and the auditor shall also be liable for action under section 447.
Disqualification for appointment as auditor:
A person who has been convicted by a court of an offence involving fraud and a period of 10 years has not elapsedfrom the date of such conviction shall be disqualified to be appointed as auditor of any company.
Action under Section 447:
Any person who is found to be guilty of fraud, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 6 months but which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than the amount involved in the fraud, but which may extend to 3 times the amount involved in the fraud.
Liability of firm:
Where, in case of audit of a company being conducted by an audit firm, it is proved that the partner or partners of the audit firm has or have acted in a fraudulent manner or abetted or colluded in any fraud by, or in relation to or by, the company or its directors or officers, the liability, whether civil or criminal as provided in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, for such act shall be of the partner or partners concerned of the audit firm and of the firm jointly and severally.
5.Class Action Suits
Any 100 or more members/deposit holders of the company or 10% of the total number of members/deposit
holders of the company can file a class action suit to claim damages or compensation or demand any other suitable action against the auditor in the manner prescribed under Section 245 of the Act. Action under this section can be initiated against the auditor including audit firm of the company for any improper or misleading statement of particulars made in the audit report or for any fraudulent, unlawful or wrongful act or conduct.
Where the members or depositors seek any damages or compensation or demand any other suitable action from or against an audit firm, the liability shall be of the firm as well as of each partner who was involved in making any improper or misleading statement of particulars in the audit report or who acted in a fraudulent, unlawful or wrongful manner.