On an average, 300-400 cases concluded every year by disciplinary mechanism, says ICAI President

As many as 300 to 400 cases on an average are concluded every year by the disciplinary committees of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, ICAI President Ranjeet Kumar Agarwal told BT, while underlining that the body has a very robust disciplinary mechanism.

“Whatever complaint comes to us, we go through and then the (disciplinary committee) benches as per their wisdom take the call. Compliance has to be there,” Agarwal underlined in an interaction.

He however, declined to comment on the recent orders by the ICAI’s disciplinary committee against three affiliates of auditing major EY and a retired partner for “professional misconduct”.

“There are five benches in the ICAI where cases are listed. The disciplinary committee is empowered to take all these decisions. I as the ICAI president have nothing to comment. That’s a separate body which looks after these proceedings,” he said.

While such decisions were also taken in the past, these are now gaining attention as they are now being put up on the website, he further said.

On April 25, the disciplinary committee of the ICAI has issued orders against EY affiliates S R Batliboi & Associates, LLP; SRBC & Co, LLP; S R Batliboi & Co LLP and retired partner Raj Kumar Agrawal. Another order has been issued against S V Ghatalia & Associates, LLP, and its partner for professional misconduct. It has directed the firms and the individual partner concerned to immediately stop existing arrangements with the multinational entities, as it is circumventing the provisions of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

Established by an Act of Parliament, the ICAI is the apex body for Chartered Accountants and works for the regulation and development of the profession in the country.

Agarwal noted that there are over 16 lakh companies registered on the RoC portal, whose auditors are all regulated by the ICAI. The ICAI also regulates member to member professional misconduct such as violation of advertising guidelines or not taking NoC of the previous auditor.