ICAI cleans CA on the accusation of excessive accounts and refusal NOC

The case of the Council on the discipline expressed by Dr. Court Tapar, the partner of the Homthi Parshad Harchad Hospital, against Cained Vrat Bhalala, who held the position of a graduate accountant of the hospital since 2007-08. The accusations included criminal intimidation, false accounts, property documents, confidential violation, forgery, retention of audit profits and professional work. The Council reviewed these allegations, ultimately rejecting the majority, including intimidation, forgery and confidential violation. However, the two fees remained for consideration: issuing emergency accounts for services and refusing to issue a certificate without objections (NOC) for hospital audit. The defendant defended the meeting, stating that the invoices covered as audit and arbitration services and corresponded to sectoral practice. In addition, he justified the NOC delay, referring to the concern about the expected meeting and the failure of the auditor who is not included. After reviewing the evidence and submission, the Council concluded that the respondent was not guilty of professional misconduct, and the case was closed.

PR/229/2021/DD/259/2021/BOD/709/2023

Council of discipline

(Compiled in accordance with Section 21A of the Law on Diploma Accountants in 1949)

Conclusions within the rule of rule 14 (9) Read with Rule 15 (2) on certified accountants (procedure for investigating professional and other violations and behavior), 2007

Coram:

Bl. Radgendra Kumar P, chairman
Ms. Dolly Chakrabarty, Government Candidate

In question:

Dr. Sudch Tarp
Homthy Hospital Hospital
Gt road, opposite the new Dana Mandy
Moga – 142001, Punjab

………………………. Complainant

Against

Bl. Ved vrat bhalala (M. № 081941),
M/s vv bhalala & co. Charter accountants
Sodiian Street, Ferzupur,
Ferzpur, Punjab

………………………. Respondent

Date of final hearing: December 27 2024

The place of the final hearing: Icai Bhawan, Chandigarh

Parties present:

Complainant: Dr. Sudch Tarp (Personally)

Substitute lawyer: Dr. S.S. Sharma (through VC)

Conclusions:

The background of the case

1. The complainant stated that the respondent is associated with the complainant from the financial year of 2007-08 as a graduate accountant (for his professional services) for their hospital, namely Homthi Parshad Hosad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Hospital’) Where the complainant is a partner with her husband. As it was said, in addition to the auditor of the hospital, the respondent became a cousin of the complainant’s man and developed a good relationship with the complainant’s husband, and therefore the respondent knew about the properties kept by the complainant, and after that the son -in -law and the daughter -in -law with the intention of grasping her property under the appearance assistance.

The accusation is claimed:

2. The complainant who states as under: –

APPROINT-1: Criminal intimidation: That the respondent orally and telephone threatened the complainant to destroy his hospital if she did not agree in family act. In addition, the respondent was interested in the sale of the complainant, forcing her to sign the dotted line in combination with his son -in -law and daughter -in -law. She said she was silent for his abuse and threats for the last three years.

APPLIATION 2: Raised a false account and an excellent fee was charged: The complainant argued that the respondent had raised false accounts for previous years and charged an excessive professional fee until she canceled all his fees, and the hospital’s balance sheet showed the last amount of payment as Rs. 22 500/-What was paid through a check number 000405 from 29-06-2020. It is indicated that when the complainant refused to answer the threat of the respondent, he (the respondent) raised extraordinary accounts -Factures to his professional fee of 35 varnishes, 11 varnishes, 13.57 varnishes and 6.05 varnishes, except for the accused of GST 99,000, 1, 22,175 and 54,450 rubles in these accounts. It is noted that such a GST/service tax, which he has charged in these accounts, is required for investigation.

APPROINT 3: Does not produce property documents: The complainant argued that the respondent did not return the original papers of the plots, which owned independent property located in the village of Danneke, adjacent to the lawn. In addition, she stated that in the recent decision of the ICAI ethical standard council, a certified accountant could not make official records as a pledge in case of non -payment.

APPROINT 4: Violation of privacy: The complainant argued that the respondent shared the details of his moving, real estate (albeit false) and details with taxation with unscrupulous people, such as Sri Amandip Malhotra, lawyer and his close trusted, through which he was in court. -on your mother -in -law. It is further argued that the respondent, due to such Mr. Amandipa Malhotra, also sent a complaint to the income tax department, which reveals incorrect and exaggerated data to harass the complainant mentally and physically.

Statement 5: Fake: The complainant argued that the respondent had forged a pre -signed stamp, which could be used as a statement that contained information that the complainant was not agreed, and such a statement has never been made by it.

APPLIATION 6: Without issuing NOC to current CA for audit: The complainant argued that the respondent intentionally tried to delay the audit return of the hospital by giving up the NOC.

APPLIATION 7: Below Professional Work: The complainant claimed that the respondent intentionally and negligently did not give proper return. She stated that the respondent was aware of her mental and physical status after a man’s accident because his husband was coma for three years (2012 to 2015), and after his death the respondent did not take into account the income from a fixed deposit during the filing of income tax and The same was indicated by her current Ka, who made the revision, and she had to pay the debt over the years.

3. Initially, the Council noted that in view of the collection of numbers 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7, as stated above, after a thorough investigation, the director (discipline) keeps the defendant “not guilty” Director (discipline). Therefore, the Council restricted the existing proceedings of only two accusations, that is, the statement No. 2 stating that the respondent raised false bills in previous years and accused an exorbitant professional fee while she had already cleared all its contributions, and the balance of the hospital showed the last amount to be paid as RS . 22 500/-What was paid through a check number 000405 from 29-06-2020. It is indicated that when the complainant refused to answer the threat of the respondent, he (the respondent) raised extraordinary accounts -Factures to his professional fee of 35 varnishes, 11 varnishes, 13.57 varnishes and 6.05 varnishes, except for the accused of GST 99,000, 1, 22,175 and 54.450 rubles in these accounts and statements No. 6 that the respondent intentionally tried to delay the audit return of the hospital by abandoning the NOC.

Short proceedings:

.

Listening date (s)	Hearing Status (s)
04 April 2024	Postponed at the respondent’s request
December 27 2024	The case is obeyed and ends

Short Submission of the respondent:

5. The defendant challenges the second statement, arguing that the interpretation of the director (discipline) is a legally disadvantage. The defendant claims that the relevant bills were not only for audit fees, but also covered the arbitration services and other agreed services. These bills, covering the period from 200708 to 2018-19, have already been taken into account in the complainant’s books without having a prominent meeting for audience. The defendant argues that the director (discipline) did not recognize the demarcation between audit payments and fees for additional services, such as arbitration, which were completed and exhibited in 2020. In addition, the respondent claims that the fees charged for arbitration with the customary arbitration charges, sanctioned courts. The defendant emphasizes that the bills consisted of two different components: audit fees, already taken into account in previous years, and fees for current services, such as arbitration, which separately invoked the account. Thus, the respondent argues that the director’s failure to recognize the nature of rendered and exposed services, especially in the arbitration, has led to a false assessment of the situation.

6 Next, the respondent also competes on delaying the issuance of a certificate without objections (NOC) on the audit of the hospital, referring to his right to objections on the basis of payment, as allowed by the law on diploma accountants in 1949 and the Code of Ethics. He argues that his objection against the coming auditor, California Vishal Mittal, was immediately addressed to the answer sent the next day and seeks instructions from the ICAI ethical standards council demonstrated careful compliance with professional standards. However, the respondent criticizes the incoming auditor’s behavior, emphasizing the failure of a reasonable time frame for response and its premature initiation of audit procedures without proper communication with its predecessor. The defendant argues that his objection to the appointment of the coming auditor was conscientious, rooted in true anxiety about the expected meetings and immediately resolved. It is argued that any delay in the release of NOCs was not caused by the respondent’s actions, but rather that the incoming auditor did not adhere to ICAI procedures, including premature initiation of audit procedures without proper communication with his predecessor. The respondent emphasized that any delay in the release of the NOC was not associated with them, but rather with the inability of the auditor to follow the proper procedures.

Observing the Council:

7. The Council noted that the complainant appeared in person and the respondent’s lawyer appeared at a videoconference. The defendant was not present and was represented by a lawyer. Since there is no respondent, no oath was taken. The emergence of the respondent before the Council was released. Both parties were considered in detail about the accusations.

8. The Council also noted that the seven charges made by the complainant, the Council, according to Prima Facie, found that only two charges remain relevant to the decision, that is, the accusation # 2 concerning the fake or extraordinary fees and recovery No. 6, As for the non -compliance of the certificate without objections (NOC). As for the penalty No. 6, the Council noted that this issue lies between the respondent and the new graduate accountant, and thus.

9. As for the accusation No. 2, which claims that the respondent raised exorbitant laws, the complainant claimed that the invoices were issued for services provided 10 years before their issue. However, the Council noted that the terms and quantum of the invoices is a matter between the respondent and the complainant or the complainant’s dead man and is not within the immediate competence of the council. The respondent’s lawyer said even more that all the invoices were withdrawn, and no outstanding contribution remained a paid complainant.

201

Conclusion:

11. Thus, at the end, in the opinion of the Council, the respondent is Not to blame Professional misconduct that fall under the value of paragraph (8) and paragraph (9) of the first schedule to the law on diploma accountants in 1949. Respective professional and other rules of misconduct), 2007.

SD/- Bl. Radzezhra Kumar village Presiding

SD/- Dolly Chakrabarty, IAAS (Retd.) Government Candidate