ICAI Board of Discipline Holds Outgoing Auditor Guilty of Solicitation and Professional Misconduct for Disparaging Successor CA
Case Overview
Case: CA Rohan Agrawal v. CA Shriyans Kumar Jain
**File No.😗* BOD/631/2022 | PR/274/2019/DD/296/2019
Findings Dated: 16th January 2026
Penalty Order Dated: 19th June 2026
Authority: ICAI Board of Discipline, constituted under Section 21A of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949
Key Legal Provisions Involved: Item (6) of Part I and Item (2) of Part IV of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949;
Section 21A(3)of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949; Rule 15(1) of the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007
Background and Factual Matrix
CA Shriyans Kumar Jain, along with his audit firm, had been serving as statutory auditor of Madhav College, PGV College, and several other educational institutions managed by Madhya Bharat Shiksha Samiti for a period spanning nearly three and a half decades. The complainant, CA Rohan Agrawal, had previously completed his articleship training at the respondent's firm between 1st April 2011 and 31st March 2014.
For the financial year 2018-19, the client institutions decided to change their statutory auditor and appointed CA Rohan Agrawal in place of CA Shriyans Kumar Jain and his firm. Following this appointment, CA Rohan Agrawal fulfilled his professional obligation by formally communicating with the outgoing auditor as required under Item (8) of Part I of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, which mandates that an incoming auditor must communicate with the outgoing auditor before accepting the audit assignment.
Rather than responding directly to the incoming auditor — which would have been the professionally appropriate course of action — the respondent chose to write directly to the client institutions. These communications became the subject matter of the disciplinary complaint filed before the ICAI.
Nature of the Objectionable Communications
The letters sent by the respondent to the Principals of Madhav Shiksha Mahavidyalaya, Madhav Law College, and PGV College contained several problematic elements, which the Board examined in detail:
Emphasis on Long-Standing Association and Exclusivity Claims
- The respondent highlighted his firm's 36-year association with the client institutions as a basis for continued appointment.
- He claimed that his firm was the only empanelled firm with the Registrar of Firms & Societies for conducting the audit of Madhya Bharat Education Society.
- These assertions were designed to create the impression that no other auditor could legitimately or practically replace the respondent's firm.
Questioning the Incoming Auditor's Authority and Competence
- The respondent explicitly stated that CA Rohan Agrawal was not authorized to conduct any audit on behalf of V.K. Gupta & Co., making an unsubstantiated allegation without producing any supporting evidence.
- More significantly, the respondent used the expression that the accounts were "very complicated" and could not be handled by an "inexperienced person" — a remark that the Board found to be a direct and adverse reflection on the professional competence of the incoming auditor.
Direct Request for Reappointment
- The respondent concluded his communications with an express request to the client institutions to issue an audit appointment letter for the financial year 2018-19, stating that it was the privilege of the governing body to appoint auditors and urging the clients to do so at the "earliest possible."