18 March 2006

Clarification on Bank Empanelment

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

34 comments:

  1. Anonymous11:49 AM

    Thanks Ashwin,

    We 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

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks Aswinbhai,

    Is it possible to know whehter the non allotment is due to cooling or for any other reason ? - what is the normal cooling period ?

    Thanks and regards,

    A.Shah

    ReplyDelete
  3. suresh mistry12:02 PM

    Dear Sir,

    Thanks for your professional updation, We are really proud of you

    thanks again

    suresh mistry
    m.n. 109002

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous12:02 PM

    Dear Ashwin Nagar,

    Keep it up. The information is always useful to large number of members. Hats off to you

    Regards

    subodh kedia

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous12:07 PM

    thanks ashwin,
    we have also not been alloted the bank audit this yera. this is a great news from u. thanks for cslming us down

    gaurav
    gorakhpur

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous1:15 PM

    We should not how so much interest in Bank Audits. It compromises with independence.

    This 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.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous1:44 PM

    Dear Mr. Nagar,
    I 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

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous2:49 PM

    Thanks ashwinbhai

    KEEP IT UP

    SHIV CHECHANI
    CELL NO. 9426007018

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous4:24 PM

    It is quite possible that our members had not given information about cross holding in form. The Institute has accepted form in toto.

    The 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.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous5:15 PM

    Dear Ashwin,
    Thanks 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

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous5:15 PM

    Thank you Ashwinbhai for your regular updates.

    Regards,

    CA Manoj Jain

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous5:16 PM

    Thank you Ashwinbhai for your regular updates.

    Regards,

    CA Manoj Jain

    ReplyDelete
  13. Sachin Miniyar7:02 PM

    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.

    But we expect that our views need to be strongly put-forth during the meeting of WIRC members.

    Regards,
    CA Sachin Miniyar (sachinminiyar@sancharnet.in)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous7:11 PM

    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 ).

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous7:41 PM

    Our 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 .
    Manoj Parmar Jalgaon

    ReplyDelete
  16. MR ASHWIN,

    ICAI & RBI SHOULD NOT BEHAVE AS IF THEY ARE IN SOME COMMUNIST COUNTRY. WE ARE A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY AND RBI SHOULD PUBLISH
    [A] NORMS OF SHORTLISTING CANDIDATES FOR AUDITS
    [B] PUBLISH THIS EITHER ON ITS OWN WEBSITE OR THROUGH ICAI
    [C] GIVE DATA ON ALLOTMENTS OF EACH FIRM FOR ALL MEMBERS TO SEE. THIS WILL GIVE TRANSPARENCY TO THE ENTIRE SYSTEM
    [D] SUCH STATISTICS, DATA WOULD BE AVAILABLE ONLY TO MEMBERS OF ICAI WHO HAVE EMPANELLED
    [E] WORLD WIDE HIGHLY PRESTIGIOUS BODIES LIKE WORLD BANK, ADB, AFDB, FMO, EEC etc ALWAYS REPEAT ALWAYS PUBLISH THE LIST OF FIRMS WHO HAVE BEEN AWARDED THE CONSULTANCY/ASSIGNMENTS
    [F] ARE WE ALL LIVING IN STONE AGE ??
    [G] I AM NOT AWARE OF RBI & ICAI BEING EXEMPTED EITHER FROM RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT OR FROM QUESTIONS IN PARLIAMENT.
    [H] ALL MEMBERS WHO FEEL AGGRIEVED, IN THE DARK, NOT METED OUT JUSTICE EVENTHOUGH THEY WERE QUALIFIED SHOULD THINK ON LINES OF [G] ABOVE.
    [I] SHOULD'NT MEMBERS HAVE COURAGE TO DO SO ??

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous11:29 AM

    Dear Mr. Nagar,
    I 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.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous11:32 AM

    Dear Ashwinji,
    Thnks 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

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous2:42 PM

    Hello Ashwin
    My 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

    ReplyDelete
  20. Sandeep D Jain12:48 PM

    Dear Sir
    I 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.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous1:49 PM

    Ashwin Bhai.

    This 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

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous4:38 PM

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous6:17 PM

    What 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.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous12:37 PM

    Dear Ashwinbhai

    What 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

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous12:58 PM

    Dear Mr. Nagar

    Thanks 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

    ReplyDelete
  26. Subhash Akbari10:44 AM

    Dear Ashwin,
    ICAI 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

    ReplyDelete
  27. R. T. Jain10:47 AM

    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?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anonymous3:29 PM

    Dear Ashwin,

    We 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.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous4:00 PM

    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"

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anonymous8:07 PM

    Dear Mr. Nagar,

    I 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

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anonymous3:18 PM

    CA. Tarun Ghia has filed a writ petition in Mumbai High Court demanding objectivity and transparancy in allotment of Bank Audit.

    What is the view of the group on this

    Regards
    Nimesh Dedhia

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous1:41 PM

    Dear Mr. Nagar
    ICAI 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

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymous1:49 PM

    Dear Mr. Nagar
    Again 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

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous1:49 PM

    Dear Mr. Nagar
    Again 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

    ReplyDelete

What do you think about this? Please write your comment.

Empanel as Concurrent Auditors

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA invites online applications from practicing firms of Chartered Accountants, in the prescribed format, who are willing to...