Dear members,
Some of the members might have been disappointed on account of the non-allotment of bank branch audit to their firm. In this regard, I wish to draw your attention to the following points:
1. The Announcement hosted on the home page of the ICAI website mentions the reasons in brief from PD Secretariat.
2. Every year, out of 24,000 (approx.) firms which get empanelled, only about 16,000 get allotment. Therefore, sizeable number of firms do not get allotment every year on the basis of internal norms of the RBI.
3. ICAI only processes and forwards the list. It is only the RBI which develops norms and makes allotment on that basis.
4. This year, the non allotment, apart from other reasons, appears to be mainly on account of rejection of less than three years old firm and cooling period wherein, instead of 16 existing centres, 17 more have been added, making it 33 centres.
Hope this will clarify the position with respect to bank Audit empanelment.
regards,
Ashwin Nagar
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Drafts of tax accounting standard on construction contracts, government grants issued The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has invited c...
-
After the ICAI regional council and central council elections , there is an anxious waiting period for resul...
-
Here is the final list of candidates won from WIRC for Central Council: Sr. No. Name of Candidate 1 CA. Adukia Rajkumar Satyanarayan 2 CA...
Thanks Ashwin,
ReplyDeleteWe are updated regualrly with your mails, its good that you have intimated for non-allotment for audits, so newly comers or practising CA should be known abt the allotment procedures
thanks
Chitranjan Bharadia
Dear Sir,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your professional updation, We are really proud of you
thanks again
suresh mistry
m.n. 109002
Dear Ashwin Nagar,
ReplyDeleteKeep it up. The information is always useful to large number of members. Hats off to you
Regards
subodh kedia
thanks ashwin,
ReplyDeletewe have also not been alloted the bank audit this yera. this is a great news from u. thanks for cslming us down
gaurav
gorakhpur
We should not how so much interest in Bank Audits. It compromises with independence.
ReplyDeleteThis year, proprietary firms which never got audits for the last 20 years got audits this time. Similarly, the firms which have been regularly geeting bank audits for the last 20 years, were denied audit this year. It is a great reversal of wel established trend.
Dear Mr. Nagar,
ReplyDeleteI have gone through the clarification given by you on behalf of the Institute. I find it flawed on many counts after my discussions with the officials concerned in RBI and ICAI
1) That the ICAI had sent a list of without applying the norms to RBI which the RBI had returned saying that the Institute should send a list of firms after applying the required norms. So it was only the Institute which has prepared the list and sent it to the RBI. This is contrary to your claim that RBI has prepared the list after applying the norms.Whole process needs to be steramlined at the Institute only.
2) Secondly, the clarifications from the PD secretrait mentions one of the reason for disqualification that the partners should be exclusively associated with the firm. In Nagpur there are several firms which have cross holdings but are in the list of allotees.
3) That as per the norms firms are to be put to rest only if they are allotees for uninterrupted period of 5 years. In Nagpur there are many firms who are put to rest even on completion of 2 years.
Abhiram Deshmukh
Nagpur
Thanks ashwinbhai
ReplyDeleteKEEP IT UP
SHIV CHECHANI
CELL NO. 9426007018
It is quite possible that our members had not given information about cross holding in form. The Institute has accepted form in toto.
ReplyDeleteThe empanelment procedure was never accurate at Institute Office. It was also ill planned.
Now it is time to reopen the all firms having partners of scan tained bank audit firms. These members have formed new partnership firms and got bank audits in new firms.
Reserve Bank and Institute should work together to identify and bar such firms.
Dear Ashwin,
ReplyDeleteThanks for ur valuable informations.
but i think,insitute need to do something so as to save young members from frustration when deserving candidates do not get bank audit.
thanks
amit kothari
surat
Thank you Ashwinbhai for your regular updates.
ReplyDeleteRegards,
CA Manoj Jain
Thank you Ashwinbhai for your regular updates.
ReplyDeleteRegards,
CA Manoj Jain
Thanks Ashwinbhai for your proactive updation. But I would also like to support the views posted by other members stating that there have been proprietorship firms who have been allotted bank audits when the proprietor is already a partner in some other firm. At this juncture it is the role of our Institute to track such applications and reject the empanellment for such firms. How can RBI be held responsiblefor the same? I also welcome the basic requirement of 3 years in existance introduced by concerned authorities.
ReplyDeleteBut we expect that our views need to be strongly put-forth during the meeting of WIRC members.
Regards,
CA Sachin Miniyar (sachinminiyar@sancharnet.in)
Thanks for information on procedure of empanelment and allotment of bank audits. However, there are some firms which are alloted the audit even after 5 years ( without cooling period ).
ReplyDeleteOur Institute cannt scan members who are practising and submitting empanelment forms in individual names even if they are partners in the firm. I cannot believe this. How & Why can't our Institite san such defaruding members? Further what about those centres i.e. 33 odd centres which are termed as "cooling centres". Cannot Institute know these from RBI and publish?. It is disgusting for a member or firm who submits application complying with all regulations/nroms and still do not get audfits and some erring/defrauding members get audit by falsely represeting .
ReplyDeleteManoj Parmar Jalgaon
Dear Mr. Nagar,
ReplyDeleteI have gone through the clarification given by you and comments of Mr. Abhiram Deshmukh As per Mr. Abhiram
"1) That the ICAI had sent a list of without applying the norms to RBI which the RBI had returned saying that the Institute should send a list of firms after applying the required norms. So it was only the Institute which has prepared the list and sent it to the RBI. This is contrary to your claim that RBI has prepared the list after applying the norms.Whole process needs to be steramlined at the Institute only.
2) Secondly, the clarifications from the PD secretrait mentions one of the reason for disqualification that the partners should be exclusively associated with the firm. In Nagpur there are several firms which have cross holdings but are in the list of allotees."
This has hampered the very dignity of the institute and the profession. We have a large concern for the profession but this might have a negative effect.
In our profession knowledge, expertism, seniority and such other qualities have a great impact on audit assignments. One of the independent allotments is of Bank Branch Audit Allotment; but this time it seems the other way. No matter I have not received the audit assignment but there are a large number of good CAs who though elegible could not get the allotment.
Dear Ashwinji,
ReplyDeleteThnks for ur mail on reason for non allotment and also for updating us from time to time on prof.developments.
In case of a Firm having H.O Located out of state & Branch in other state, I would like to know whether Branch is also considered for allotment of Statutory Audit of Banks/CAG Audits.
Thanks & Regards
Hello Ashwin
ReplyDeleteMy self CA Rakesh Vaswani from Nagpur
I would like to know from your end that whether the location of Ho does make difference or Branch office.I am from Nagpur and also have branch in Raipur.Would it make difference that i could be considered in favourble position to have raipur AUDITS.As the peoples are more interested to have HO in rural areas to have bank branch audits.But in my case my branch is at Raipur and HO is in Nagpur.So in your opinion should i interchange the location for favourable points for bank branch audit.
my email id is rockyvaswani@yahoo.co.in
Dear Sir
ReplyDeleteI am fully agree with Abhiram Deshmukh. I am CA sandeep D JAin,from Nagpur. In the era of Right of Information Act, it is expected from premier institution like ICAI& RBI, suo moto publish the norms for allotments of bank Audit.
Ashwin Bhai.
ReplyDeleteThis year RBI has not done allotment on fair and rational basis.
I hope this matter should be taken up in the interest of the profession
Sunit Sethia
Burhanpur
9425326401
On reading your replies it appears that there has been discrimination in allottment of audits and the firms have been favoured.It is very sad that the elected members insteading of taking up the matters is justifying the act of RBI as if they have some personal interest in doing so.All allottments in nagpur are done without following the norms prescribed.
ReplyDeleteWhat about next year, wheather banks shall have dicreation as per Finance ministry's letter to choose from C&AG, ICAI panel or ask to RBI for list as per old practice. The letter from FM smacks of something that someone has managed to be appointed bypassing RBI appointments and created all sorts of turmoil.
ReplyDeleteDear Ashwinbhai
ReplyDeleteWhat about the firms who's names have not been sent by the institute to R.B.I. without any fault of them?
Whether Institute plans to take any corrective measure?
Thanks for your updates
C.L. MADHYAN M.NO. 36374
Dear Mr. Nagar
ReplyDeleteThanks for regular updates on matters related to ICAI and recent changes on various laws.
Please keep it up, our all well wishes with you.
Dilip Jain
dkja@ rediffmail.com
Dear Ashwin,
ReplyDeleteICAI in past meetings/seminars always encouraged to form partneships/networking for the purpose of empanellment. Ours is already a partnership firm since few yeras. That to the only p'ship firm in this city. The irony is that we are the only ones not getting allotment in this city though we had got it even in the 1st year of practice itself. What i would like to know is that does partnership firm has this as a disvantage as compared to others. In fact it should be the other way.
Subhash Akbari
How is it that we got cooling period just after getting bank audit for 1 year only after earlier cooling period. May we know the reason or criteria for this?
ReplyDeleteDear Ashwin,
ReplyDeleteWe are a firm from Nagpur practicing since last 15 years. You have forwarded the points given by your President asking you to inform the members that the ICAI only processes and forwards the list. It is only the RBI which develops norms and makes allotment on that basis and the rejection could be to be mainly on account of rejection of less than three years old firm and cooling period.
It has been observed that many CA firms who are less than 3 years old have got the Audit. Also many proprietory concerns have got the Audit. Some of the CAs had approached RBI and were told that the list is prepared by your Institute and not them.
We want the elected representatives like you to eally act as our REPRESENTATIVE RATHER THAN MERELY FORWARDING THE MAIL SENT BY YOUR INSTITUTE. Kindly shed some light on the issue as next elections are round the corner.
We are also firm of CAs from Nagpur. The Bank Branch allotted to us last year has been allotted to CA firm from Mumbai. We have been practicing since last 10 years and are not aware of any Branch of less than 10 crores in Nagpur being alloted to CAs from Mumbai. Not to mention that the travelling expenses would almost be equal to the audit fees. This clearly shows that Influential firms at Mumbai are getting the audits while many firms like us are deprived the audit in the guise of "Cooling Period"
ReplyDeleteDear Mr. Nagar,
ReplyDeleteI received your mail regarding TDS payment on r befire 31st March 2006 for payment made on or before 30th MArch 2006.
can resend the mail giving a brief on the same
CA. Tarun Ghia has filed a writ petition in Mumbai High Court demanding objectivity and transparancy in allotment of Bank Audit.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the view of the group on this
Regards
Nimesh Dedhia
Dear Mr. Nagar
ReplyDeleteICAI is now asking members to recheck application of New Empanelment Norms. As per these norms the CAs practicing either in his individual capacity or as a sole proprietor is not eligible for empanelment itself, then how come this happened that thousands of such CAs who were not eligible for empanelment but bank branches have been alloted. And those who have formed Partnership firms to comply with the Norms losts the audit which they individually getting till last year. ICAI has recently withdrawn these norms from its website, spirit behind this is not good.
I congratulate Mr.Tarun Ghia on filing the writ petition.
Regards
Sanjay
Dear Mr. Nagar
ReplyDeleteAgain Sanjay
Corrected word for above comment
the CAs practicing either in his individual capacity or as a sole proprietor "not having at leat one CA as employee"
Regards
Sanjay
Dear Mr. Nagar
ReplyDeleteAgain Sanjay
Corrected word for above comment
the CAs practicing either in his individual capacity or as a sole proprietor "not having at leat one CA as employee"
Regards
Sanjay