|
Facts:
a) 'A', auditor
of the company, was replaced by ‘B’. A made a complaint against B levying
various allegations against him;
b) The Council,
found B prima
facie guilty of professional
misconduct and, accordingly, referred the matter to the Disciplinary
Committee;
c) Disciplinary
Committee found B guilty of professional misconduct under sections 21 and 22.
The Council made a reference seeking confirmation of removal of B’s name from
the register of members of the ICAI.
The High Court held as under:
1) A had no locus standi to make a complaint as
the company whose audit report was stated to have been prepared by B contrary to
the prescribed norms, had not made any complaint against B;
2) The Disciplinary Committee had not referred
to particular portions of the report which were found not in conformity with the
prescribed norms;
3) B was not shown to have been served with a
notice of hearing by the Disciplinary Committee. The entire proceeding of the
Disciplinary Committee was contrary to the settled principles of natural
justice;
4) A undisputedly was biased against B, because
of his having been replaced as auditor of the aforesaid company. Therefore, case
put forth by him could not be accepted in the absence of independent
corroboration. Thus, the reference made by council was to be rejected - ICAI V.
VIJAY KUMAR (2013) 37
taxmann.com 203 (HC-P&H)
| 
No comments:
Post a Comment