💡 Show solution AI SOLUTION
The following statements are analysed for correctness:
(a) INCORRECT. A more automated business environment does not necessarily mean it is less complex. On the contrary, increased automation often introduces IT-related complexities such as system interdependencies, automated journal entries, access controls, and data integrity risks. As per SA 315 (Identifying and Assessing the Risks of Material Misstatement Through Understanding the Entity and Its Environment), the auditor must understand the entity's use of IT, which itself adds layers of complexity — including risks of system failures, unauthorised access, and change management issues. Thus, automation may increase, rather than decrease, the complexity of the business environment.
(b) INCORRECT. As per SA 200 (Overall Objectives of the Independent Auditor and the Conduct of an Audit in Accordance with Standards on Auditing), the auditor aims to reduce audit risk to an acceptably low level, not to zero. Absolute assurance is impossible due to inherent limitations of an audit — use of sampling, reliance on management representations, and professional judgment. Audit risk can never be eliminated entirely; therefore, the auditor provides reasonable assurance, not absolute assurance.
(c) CORRECT. As per SA 320 (Materiality in Planning and Performing an Audit), determining materiality requires the exercise of professional judgment. There is no single formula; the auditor considers both quantitative benchmarks (e.g., a percentage of profit before tax, turnover, or total assets) and qualitative factors (nature of the item, user needs). Different auditors may reach different but equally valid conclusions on materiality for the same entity.
(d) INCORRECT. The scope of the internal audit function is not restricted solely to the evaluation of internal controls. As per SA 610 (Using the Work of Internal Auditors), the internal audit function may cover a wide range of activities including: (i) evaluation of risk management processes; (ii) review of governance mechanisms; (iii) review of compliance with laws and regulations; (iv) assessment of operational efficiency and economy; and (v) investigation of fraud. The objectives and scope are determined by management and those charged with governance and are far broader than internal control evaluation alone.
(e) INCORRECT. For accounts payable (a liability), the primary assertion at risk is completeness (i.e., are all payables recorded?), not existence. Testing *recorded* accounts payable traces from the ledger to source documents, which addresses the existence/valuation assertions — confirming that recorded payables are genuine. However, this direction of testing does not address unrecorded liabilities. To test completeness, the auditor should trace from source documents (invoices, goods received notes, supplier statements) *to* the ledger. Focusing only on recorded payables creates a significant audit gap regarding omitted liabilities.
(f) INCORRECT. As per Section 139(8) of the Companies Act, 2013, any casual vacancy in the office of an auditor of a company (other than a company whose accounts are subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India) shall be filled by the Board of Directors within thirty days. If such vacancy is caused by the resignation of an auditor, such appointment shall also be approved by the company at a general meeting convened within three months. The statement incorrectly attributes this power to the Audit Committee instead of the Board of Directors.
(g) CORRECT. As per SA 500 (Audit Evidence), sufficiency is the measure of the quantity of audit evidence, while appropriateness is the measure of the quality (i.e., relevance and reliability) of audit evidence. The quantity of evidence needed is affected by the auditor's assessment of risks of material misstatement and the quality of evidence obtained. Both sufficiency and appropriateness are interrelated and together determine the adequacy of audit evidence.
(h) INCORRECT. As per SA 701 (Communicating Key Audit Matters in the Independent Auditor's Report), communication of Key Audit Matters (KAM) is a requirement for audits of listed entities, irrespective of whether the audit opinion is modified or unmodified. It is not triggered solely by a modified opinion. In fact, when the auditor expresses a modified opinion under SA 705 (Modifications to the Opinion in the Independent Auditor's Report), the matters giving rise to modification are discussed in a separate 'Basis for Modification' paragraph and are not repeated as KAM. KAM are those matters that, in the auditor's professional judgment, were of most significance in the audit of the financial statements of the current period.