CA Final · Advanced Auditing, Assurance and Professional Ethics · Professional Ethics & Liabilities of Auditors
Two joint auditors of Kaveri Pharma Ltd divided the audit: A audited the manufacturing units and B audited the sales and marketing functions. Both documented the division and communicated it to the company. Later, a material misstatement is found in the stock of a manufacturing unit, which was audited only by A, and no matter had been brought to B's notice. Separately, the audit report omitted a statutory requirement. Which conclusion is correct?
A alone is responsible for the stock audit work allotted to him, while both joint auditors are jointly and severally responsible for the audit report complying with statutes, SAs and ICAI pronouncements. Division of work limits liability for allotted areas only, not for common responsibilities such as report compliance.
- AB is jointly and severally liable for the stock misstatement because both signed the report
- BA alone is responsible for the stock audit work allotted to him, but both A and B are jointly and severally responsible for ensuring the audit report complies with statutory requirementsCorrect
- CNeither is responsible for the report omission since work was divided
- DB alone is responsible for the report omission because he audited the final accounts
Explanation
For work divided among joint auditors, each is responsible only for the work allocated to him, including proper execution of procedures. All joint auditors are jointly and severally responsible for ensuring the audit report complies with the relevant statutes, applicable SAs and other pronouncements. So B is not liable for the stock work but both are for the report.
Did you get it right without looking?
One question tells you little. A timed set on Professional Ethics & Liabilities of Auditors shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.
More Professional Ethics & Liabilities of Auditors questions
- An audit firm proposes to prepare the calculations of current and deferred tax for its listed audit client, Surya Motors Ltd., so that the c…
- CA Farah is asked by the proposed auditor of Lotus Realty Ltd. to discuss the affairs of the company, which she audited earlier. The propose…
- CA Nisha has been approached to accept the statutory audit of Bharat Agro Ltd. The existing auditor, CA Prem, was not reappointed at the AGM…
- CA Nisha is approached to replace the outgoing auditor of Sundaram Foods Ltd. The outgoing auditor did not offer himself for re-appointment …
- Himalaya Pharma Ltd., a company being audited by CA Dev, has been advised by its Board to replace CA Dev. CA Dev is willing to continue but …
- Mehta & Rao and Iyer & Co. are appointed joint auditors of Sagar Foods Ltd. They divided the audit work by units and documented it. While au…