--- title: A newly qualified auditor skipped writing to the outgoing auditor before a tax audit. An apology brought a lighter fine. description: A newly qualified chartered accountant took a client's tax audit without writing to the outgoing auditor, blamed inexperience and deadline pressure, and apologised. The Board fined him Rs.10,000. case_number: BOD 604/2022 file_number: PR/416/2019/DD/54/2020/BOD/604/2022 forum: board-of-discipline institute: icai decided_on: 2025-12-08 punished_on: 2025-12-30 outcome: Fine clauses: Item (8) of Part I of the First Schedule order_pdf: https://disc.icai.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/20.-BOD-604-2022.pdf published: 2026-09-07 author: Jainam Shah keywords: bod 604 2022, item 8 part i first schedule, communication with previous auditor, tax audit section 44ab, no objection certificate tax audit, board of discipline fine source: /icai/board-of-discipline/bod-604-2022 --- # A newly qualified auditor skipped writing to the outgoing auditor before a tax audit. An apology brought a lighter fine. A Badaun chartered accountant had audited a client's accounts for years before a colleague took over its tax audit. The colleague accepted the assignment without ever writing to tell him so.[^parties] ## What happened ```timeline A Badaun chartered accountant audits a computer-trading client's accounts, including its tax audit under Section 44AB, for a run of years. A newly qualified chartered accountant, also practising in Badaun, takes on the tax audit for a later financial year. He does not write to the outgoing auditor before accepting it, and has no record of a no-objection certificate or any other communication. Two more complaints follow alongside this one — that his name was missing from the client's income-tax portal record, and that the audit was finished in a single day. The outgoing auditor complains to ICAI. The new auditor's written reply blames inexperience and pressure near the tax-audit deadline, calls the lapse accidental, and apologises unconditionally. Repeated adjournments for medical and personal reasons stretch the hearing out over two years. When it is finally heard, the Board clears him of the two additional allegations, upholds the communication charge on his own admission, and later fines him. ``` What decided the case was an absence: no letter, no proof of posting, no acknowledgement of receipt — nothing to show a communication had ever been sent (para 1). The other two allegations failed on documents, not on argument: a portal extract confirmed the respondent's appointment as auditor, and the Board accepted that how long an audit takes can vary with the size and complexity of the client's operations, with no other sign of negligence (para 10). ## The clause **Item (8) of Part I** of the First Schedule requires a chartered accountant to communicate with the retiring auditor, in writing, before accepting a position as auditor previously held by another member.[^item8] It is a duty to write, not a duty to obtain the other auditor's consent. Of the three allegations raised, only this one survived: the Board dropped the portal-record and single-day-audit complaints for lack of evidence, and found the communication charge established on the respondent's own admission. ## What the respondent said He did not deny the lapse. His written statement explained that he was newly qualified when he took the assignment, and that inexperience and work pressure near the tax-audit deadline led him to overlook the requirement to write to the outgoing auditor. He called it an unintentional, accidental omission, tendered an unconditional apology, and assured the Board it would not happen again (para 7). The complainant, for his part, asked only that the Disciplinary Directorate decide the case on its merits, and raised no objection to it proceeding despite the delay (para 8). ## What the Board held The Board went through all three allegations and kept only one: > while three allegations were initially raised against the Respondent, only the failure to > communicate with the outgoing auditor warrants substantive consideration. The other two > allegations... were found to be unsubstantiated (para 10) On that surviving charge, the admission and the missing paperwork were enough: > the Board finds that the essential elements of Clause (8) of Part I of the First Schedule... have > been violated. Accordingly, the Respondent is held guilty of professional misconduct (para 11) ## The order > the Board hereby resolves to impose a Fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) upon [the > Respondent]. The order's operative line names him in full; the brackets above stand in for that name.[^bracket] A fine sits in the middle of the Board's punishment scale, between a reprimand and removal from the Register.[^scale] The finding took over two years to reach a hearing, largely on the respondent's own repeated requests for adjournment; punishment was passed the same day findings were signed to him.[^coram] ## Why it matters *This section is ours, not the Board's.* **Inexperience is a mitigating fact, not a defence.** The respondent's youth in practice and the deadline pressure he described did not stop the finding of guilt — they went only to how heavily he was fined. Learn the communication requirement before your first tax-audit season, not after a complaint. **An admission should be scoped to what actually happened, not the whole complaint.** The Board dropped two of the three allegations for lack of evidence and kept only the one the respondent conceded outright. Concede what you did, contest what you didn't — a blanket admission risks giving away more than the facts support. **Keep the paperwork that proves you wrote, not just that you meant to.** No letter, no postal proof, no acknowledgement survived here, and their absence was the whole case. A registered letter or an email with a delivery receipt would have ended this before it began. This summarises a public order and links the primary source. It is general information, not legal or professional advice. [^parties]: *CA. Rakesh Rastogi (M. No. 071136), Badaun* was the complainant, the outgoing auditor. *CA. Viral Rastogi (M. No. 431829)*, a partner of *M/s Ravindra Kumar & Associates, Badaun*, was the respondent, the incoming auditor. The client was M/s Rastogi Computers, whose tax audit for FY 2018-19 changed hands between them. [^item8]: Item (8) of Part I of the First Schedule requires a chartered accountant to communicate with the retiring auditor, in writing, before accepting a position as auditor previously held by another member. The assignment here was the tax audit under Section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. [^bracket]: The order names the respondent in full at this point; the words in brackets replace that name. Nothing else in this quotation has been altered. [^scale]: Section 21A(3) gives the Board a graduated set of punishments: a reprimand, a fine, or removal of the member's name from the Register for a limited period. Check the current sub-section before relying on any figure — the amounts have been amended over time. [^coram]: The findings, dated 8th December 2025, and the punishment order, passed on 30th December 2025 after the respondent appeared through video conferencing, were both signed by CA. Rajendra Kumar P (Presiding Officer), Ms. Dolly Chakrabarty (Government Nominee, IAAS, retd.) and CA. Priti Savla (Member).