Worked Solution
✓ VerifiedSTATEMENT (a) – INCORRECT
When financial statements are misstated and such misstatement is material and pervasive, the auditor should issue an adverse opinion, not a qualified opinion. Per SA 705 (Standards on Auditing 705) on Modifications to the Opinion in the Independent Auditor's Report, the nature of the misstatement determines the type of modification: (i) Qualified Opinion – issued when the misstatement is material but not pervasive, affecting only a specific area or component. (ii) Adverse Opinion – issued when the misstatement is both material and pervasive, rendering the financial statements fundamentally unreliable and not presenting a true and fair view. Since the question specifies the misstatement is both material and pervasive, the correct audit opinion is adverse, not qualified. The statement conflates two distinct situations and is therefore incorrect.
STATEMENT (b) – INCORRECT
Under Section 134(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, the financial statements of a company must be approved and signed by at least two directors (or one director if the company has only one director). However, the Act does not mandate that one of these directors must be the Managing Director. The statutory requirement is simply that two directors must approve the statements; the composition can be any two directors, whether independent, executive, or otherwise. The statement is overly restrictive and misrepresents the legal position by imposing an unnecessary condition about the MD's involvement. The actual requirement is flexible as to which specific directors sign, provided the minimum number requirement is met.
Write it like this
1The skeleton
- Lead with CORRECT / INCORRECT in bold caps — examiners tick this word first before reading your reason; if it's buried, you lose the 1-mark verdict even if your reason is perfect.
- Cite the SA or Section number in your very next clause — 'As per SA 705…' or 'Under Section 134(1) of the Companies Act, 2013…' signals to the examiner you know the source, which is where the second mark lives.
- State the actual rule in one crisp sentence — give the threshold (material + pervasive → adverse; material but not pervasive → qualified) so the examiner sees you understand the distinction, not just the conclusion.
- Apply the rule back to the statement's specific error — point out what the statement got wrong ('the statement conflates two distinct thresholds' or 'imposes a condition not found in the Act'), because this is what separates a 2/2 from a 1/2.
- Close with a one-liner reason sentence — echo your verdict ('Hence, the statement is incorrect') so the answer feels complete; examiners reward closure, especially under time pressure.
2Examiner-rewarded phrases
3Common trap
The single killer mistake here: writing 'qualified opinion' and 'adverse opinion' correctly in isolation but then not explicitly linking pervasiveness as the deciding factor — so your answer reads like a vague paraphrase, not a reasoned verdict, and you drop the application mark. For the Section 134 part, students add 'the MD must sign' because it feels logical — don't; the Act is silent on which specific directors, and importing that condition costs you the reason mark.