> sa 230 audit documentation and sa 240 auditor responsibility of fraud > in an audit of financial statement --As per SA 240 “The Auditor’s Responsibilities Relating to Fraud in an Audit of Financial Statements”, the primary responsibility for the prevention and detection of fraud rests with both those charged with governance of the entity and management. The auditor, conducting an audit, is responsible for obtaining reasonable assurance that the financial statements taken as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether caused by fraud or error. --Owing to the inherent limitations of an audit, there is an unavoidable risk that some material misstatements of the financial statements may not be detected, even though the audit is properly planned and performed in accordance with the SAs. The risk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than the risk of not detecting one resulting from error. This is because fraud may involve sophisticated and carefully organized schemes designed to conceal it, such as forgery, deliberate failure to record transactions, or intentional misrepresentations being made to the auditor. Such attempts at concealment may be even more difficult to detect when accompanied by collusion. Collusion may cause the auditor to believe that audit evidence is persuasive when it is, in fact, false. --Furthermore, the risk of the auditor not detecting a material misstatement resulting from management fraud is greater than for employee fraud, because management is frequently in a position to directly or indirectly manipulate accounting records, present fraudulent financial information or override control procedures designed to prevent similar frauds by other employees. When obtaining reasonable assurance, the auditor is responsible for maintaining professional skepticism throughout the audit, considering the potential for management override of controls and recognizing the fact that audit procedures that are effective for detecting error may not be effective in detecting fraud.

Hello, Here is your answer, **Q. No. 12 As an auditor how would you deal with the following: The statutory auditor of the holding company demands for the working paper of the auditors of the subsidiary company, of which you are the auditor.** **Ans**. As per SA 230, “Audit Documentation” working papers are the property of the auditor. The auditor may, at his discretion, make portion of or extracts of his working papers available to his client. SA 600 “Using the Work of Another Auditors” also states that an auditor should respect the confidentiality of information acquired during the course of his audit work and should not disclose such information unless there is a legal or professional duty to disclose. As per ICAI Guidelines, statutory auditor of an enterprise do not have right of access to the audit working papers of the branch auditor. An auditor can rely on the work of another auditor, without having any right of access to the audit working papers of other auditor. **Conclusion: Statutory auditor of Holding company cannot have access to audit working papers of the subsidiary company’s auditor. He can however, asks the auditor to answer certain questions about the manner in which the audit is conducted and certain other clarifications regarding audit** .......................................................... **Q. No. 13 Explain briefly duties and responsibilities of an auditor in case of material misstatements resulting from management fraud?** **Ans**. As per SA 240 “The Auditor’s Responsibilities Relating to Fraud in an Audit of Financial Statements”, the primary responsibility for the prevention and detection of fraud rests with both those charged with governance of the entity and management. The auditor, conducting an audit, is responsible for obtaining reasonable assurance that the financial statements taken as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether caused by fraud or error. Owing to the inherent limitations of an audit, there is an unavoidable risk that some material misstatements of the financial statements may not be detected, even though the audit is properly planned and performed in accordance with the SAs. The risk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than the risk of not detecting one resulting from error. This is because fraud may involve sophisticated and carefully organized schemes designed to conceal it, such as forgery, deliberate failure to record transactions, or intentional misrepresentations being made to the auditor. Such attempts at concealment may be even more difficult to detect when accompanied by collusion. Collusion may cause the auditor to believe that audit evidence is persuasive when it is, in fact, false. Furthermore, the risk of the auditor not detecting a material misstatement resulting from management fraud is greater than for employee fraud, because management is frequently in a position to directly or indirectly manipulate accounting records, present fraudulent financial information or override control procedures designed to prevent similar frauds by other employees. When obtaining reasonable assurance, the auditor is responsible for maintaining professional skepticism throughout the audit, considering the potential for management override of controls and recognizing the fact that audit procedures that are effective for detecting error may not be effective in detecting fraud. Thanks & Regards