You are a manager at Chennai & Co, a firm of Chartered Certified Accountants. One of t

he partners has asked you to investigate and respond to a number of issues which have arisen with two different companies.

(a) Delhi Co, a potential new client, is a privately owned and rapidly expanding company which currently operates below the audit threshold in the country in which it is based. The company’s management is currently considering having either a full audit or a limited assurance review of their financial statements. The partner would like you to assist the management of Delhi Co by writing a response to them in which you:

(i) Explain the difference between an audit of historical financial statements and a limited assurance review. (4 marks)

(ii) Discuss the relative advantages and disadvantages to Delhi Co of having an audit of their historical financial statements as opposed to a limited assurance review. (8 marks)

Delhi Co was incorporated in 2005, with founder and chief executive Mr Nimesh Dattani as the sole shareholder. After a period of rapid growth, Delhi Co took out a ten-year bank loan facility in June 2007 to finance Mr Dattani’s ambitious expansion plans. This was supported by a further injection of financial capital in 2014 through a new issue of shares in the company. The shares were sold to Mr Robert Hyland, an ex-business partner of Mr Dattani. The sale gave Mr Hyland a 40% shareholding in Delhi Co. He has no involvement in the management of the company.

Until recently Delhi Co operated with a small accounting department, comprising one full-time member of staff and one part-time employee. Due to the expansion of the company and Mr Dattani’s plans to expand the customer base internationally, it has been necessary to increase the size of the accounting function to include two new full-time members of staff. Both of the new recruits are part-qualified accountants and Mr Dattani has committed to sponsoring them through their remaining training and ACCA examinations.

Required:

Prepare the response to the management of Delhi Co as requested by the partner.

Note: The split of the mark allocation is shown against each of the issues above.

(b) The audit committee of another client, Mumbai Co, has asked the partner to consider whether it would be possible for the audit team to perform. a review of the company’s internal control system. A number of recent incidents have raised concerns amongst the management team that controls have deteriorated and that this has increased the risk of fraud, as well as inefficient commercial practices. The audit report for the audit of the financial statements of Mumbai Co for the year ended 31 March 2016 was signed a few weeks ago. Mumbai Co is a listed company.

Required:

In respect of the request for Chennai & Co to review Mumbai Co’s internal control systems: Identify and discuss the relevant ethical and professional issues raised, and recommend any actions necessary. (8 marks)