9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the year 2001-02 it was brought to the notice of the respondent that the complainant had actually paid ₹ 3.88 lacs and not ₹ 6.88 lacs. It is pleaded that the respondent made inquiry and on going through the personal ledger of the members maintained by the society noted that the complainant had actually paid ₹ 3.88 lacs and not ₹ 6.88 lacs. It has not been explained in the reply as to under what circumstances for the previous two years the respondent certified that the complainant had made a deposit totalling ₹ 6.88 lacs. Under the circumstances we accept the finding returned by the Disciplinary Committee as approved by the Council. Keeping in view the gravity of the misconduct the proposed penalty is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th a request to submit a written statement of defence, which was submitted on July 04, 2009. Complainant submitted a rejoinder on July 21, 2006. Respondent thereafter submitted his comments on the pleadings on October 31, 2006. 5. In accordance with Regulation 12(11) of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988 the papers were forwarded to the Council, which at its meeting held on February, 2008 opined that prima facie case to conduct an inquiry was made out. Matter was thereafter referred to the Disciplinary Committee of the Council. 6. The Disciplinary Committee heard the parties and submitted a report on February 02, 2009. The findings are as under:- 14. The Committee observed that it is an admitted fact that on record that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved, that the ledger account relied upon by the respondent duly reflects the credits and debits in respect of the two bounced cheques of ₹ 2.5 lakhs and ₹ 1 lakh each and at no stage in the ledger account, the balance of the Complainant is reflected as ₹ 6.88 lakhs. The Committee has not been able to understand as to how the respondent certified the balance as on 31st March, 1999 and 31st March, 2000 as ₹ 6.88 lakhs. It is also noticed that difference in the two certified balances is only ₹ 3 lakhs while the two bounced cheques total to ₹ 3.50 lakhs. Therefore, this contention of the respondent does not appear to be tenable. 14.2 As regards the stand taken by the respondent as mentioned in point (b) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to have done as a prudent Chartered Accountant. 14.4 The Committee also observed that the respondent has failed to report in his audit report with respect to such change in balances of the depositors and to draw the attention of the members to this important matter. 7. Suffice it to highlight that as indicated in the findings of the Disciplinary Committee the respondent took 3 stands to justify the audit report for the year 2001-02 in which the amount deposited by the complainant with the society was certified to be ₹ 3.88 lacs as against ₹ 6.88 lacs certified in the audit reports for the two previous years. 8. The first justification that two cheques in sum of ₹ 1 lac and ₹ 2.5 lacs had been returned d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find not a word uttered in the reply to counter the conclusions and the reasons given by the Disciplinary Committee. In para 15 of the reply it is pleaded that while conducting the audit for the year 2001-02 it was brought to the notice of the respondent that the complainant had actually paid ₹ 3.88 lacs and not ₹ 6.88 lacs. It is pleaded that the respondent made inquiry and on going through the personal ledger of the members maintained by the society noted that the complainant had actually paid ₹ 3.88 lacs and not ₹ 6.88 lacs. 14. It has not been explained in the reply as to under what circumstances for the previous two years the respondent certified that the complainant had made a deposit totalling ₹ 6.88 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
