• Registered Users :
  • 163433
  • Current Active Users :
  • 103721

Your Answer

Question ID : 31694

FILING OF FORM ADT-1

IN HOW MANY DAYS DOES THE NEW AUDITOR IS REQUIRED TO FILE FORM ADT-1 IN CASE OF CASUAL VACANCY DUE TO RESIGNATION..??

Posted by RAHUL RUSTAGI on Jun 15, 2018

Filed Under CORPORATE & OTHER LAWS

Answer ID : 69779

On an interpretation of section 139 of the 2013 Act it seems that ADT-1 is not required to be filed in the case of an appointment of auditor to fill the casual vaccancy. siva208@yahoo

Posted by SIVADAS CHETTOOR on Jun 16, 2018
Answer ID : 69783

As per section 139 of Companies Act, 2013, and rule 4(2) of the Companies (Audit and Auditors) Rules, 2014, the company is responsible to file a notice of appointment in Form ADT-1 with Registrar of Companies within 15 days of the meeting in which the auditor is appointed. Hope this will help you.

Posted by CA PRADEEP C B on Jun 16, 2018
Answer ID : 69785

yes, CA Pradeep is correct and it is requied to be filed within 15 days.

Posted by CA. SATISH CHAND GARG on Jun 16, 2018
Answer ID : 69791

To supplement what has already been given I wish to invite the attention to the provisions of section 139(1) and its 4th proviso. Sec 139(1) deals with the appointment of auditors in the AGM. The rule 4(2) of the Companies (auditors and audit) rules also is linked to section 139(1) only. The appointment of auditor in the place of resignation is provided in section 139(8) and not us 139(1). Thus filing of ADT-1 is not required in such circumstances.

Posted by SIVADAS CHETTOOR on Jun 18, 2018
Answer ID : 69798

Form ADT-1 covers the case of casual vacancy due to resignation.

Posted by RAHUL RUSTAGI on Jun 20, 2018
Answer ID : 69801

Attention is invited to Rule 4(2) which is as follows (2) The notice to Registrar about appointment of auditor under fourth proviso to sub-section (1) of section 139 shall be in Form ADT-1. Fourth proviso to section 139(1) is for appointment us 139(1) only. Appointment to fill casual vacancy is under 139(8). Since rule 4(2) is very clear an d specific that it applies to appointment us 139(1) read with 4th proviso, I find it difficult to agree with Rahul and others with due respect to all of them.

Posted by SIVADAS CHETTOOR on Jun 21, 2018