ACA M.COM
407 Points
Joined August 2009
Raviji,
Firstly there can be two aspects:
a)Bookish interpretation( with a slight paractical aspect too)
b)Veracity and Feasibility
As far as (a) is concerned yes, the both Acts have no straight forward consus between them.
But let me clarify, the intension of the Statues as far as Audit is concerned.
Companies Act '56 is the elder peer to Taxation Act'61, so the draft committe was literally in a much wider disposition to state their "ifs and buts".
Further audit i a "compulsion" under Co. Act. Nothing precludes one from getting the Cos Accounts annually audited. However, as you are well aware that "Audit" is phenomenon of progressive income
"Assessment" which in the view of the exchequer is legitimate.
Thus, a when a Co cant escape Co Audit and whether is held in the clutches of Tax Audit, it shall resort to the recourse of sticking to the "Same Auditor".
In fact the "In. Tax Act" well comprehended this problem and prrovided clearly that "where an assess has already got his accounts audited under any other statue" he has only he supposed to attach only Form 3CA or 3 CB.
@ (b) No logic of getting audit done from two different persons since "Double Cost Burden"/Twice Audit Fees.
ABIPRAY/TATPARYA= Audit from two Auditors is not only feasible but also not Technically possible.
Because if Tax auditor is different, he expresses his opinion on account already Audited, and nothing "Exonarates one Auditor" by relying prima facie on the "Work of another auditor" with whome even he is not averse too.
Regards ...cheers..