Skip to content

CA Intermediate · Auditing and Ethics · Audit Documentation

CA Nikhil's team prepared a working paper for Shree Steel Ltd, which lists attributes tested on a sample of 25 purchase invoices. The working paper shows the tests performed and the exceptions found but does not state who performed the work or who reviewed it. A manager says that the reviewer signed the audit programme as a whole. Which is the correct audit response under SA 230?

The working paper should be supplemented to show the identifying characteristics of the 25 invoices tested, who performed the work and who reviewed it, with dates. SA 230 requires this traceability, and a general sign-off on the audit programme does not substitute for it.

  1. ADocumentation should record the identifying characteristics of the items tested and who performed and who reviewed the work and when, so the working paper should be supplementedCorrect
  2. BOnly the reviewer's name on the audit programme is needed, so no change is needed
  3. COnly the preparer's initials are required, as the review date is optional
  4. DIdentifying the items tested is unnecessary if the exceptions found are listed

Explanation

SA 230 requires the auditor to record the identifying characteristics of specific items tested, who performed the work and the date of completion, and who reviewed it and when and to what extent. A general sign-off on the programme does not do this, and listing exceptions alone leaves the sample unidentifiable.

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