Skip to content

CA Intermediate · Auditing and Ethics · Audit Documentation

After the audit report on Surya Pharma Ltd was signed on 10 June, the auditor, CA Rohan Desai, realises that a reviewer's note on a debtors confirmation was never initialled and the signed-off checklist is missing a cross-reference. The file has not yet been assembled. What is the correct course of action under SA 230?

The auditor may add the missing sign-off and cross-reference as an administrative change, provided the file records who made the change, when it was made, and why. SA 230 allows administrative changes during assembly, but backdating or deleting valid working papers is not permitted.

  1. AAdd the missing sign-off and cross-reference as an administrative change, recording who made it, when, and the reason for itCorrect
  2. BReplace the original checklist with a fresh one dated 10 June so the file looks complete
  3. CLeave the file unchanged because nothing may be altered after the report date
  4. DDelete the reviewer's note since it was not initialled, and rely on the debtors' confirmation alone

Explanation

After the file completion date, SA 230 permits changes only of an administrative nature, such as deleting superseded documentation, sorting, and cross-referencing, and completing sign-offs on the completion checklist. These must be documented with who made them, when, and why. Backdating or replacing documents hides the true position and is improper. Deleting valid documentation is also wrong, and a flat prohibition is wrong because administrative changes are allowed.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Audit Documentation shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Audit DocumentationFree diagnostic mock

More Audit Documentation questions