Auditing Assignment Help-Examples

1.0     Introduction


The company selected is Coca cola Private limited (CCE) and its auditing is done by me through E & Y as outside auditing agency. The detailed analysis of various roles, responsibilities of audits are given below.

2.0 Audit Planning

In an external audit plan, an unbiased auditor (here E&Y) has to accomplish a full range financial statement assessment, a just-residue-sheet audit, a testimony of internal regulators over financial counting or as other negotiated external assessment measures at CCE. The external audit process does not include subcontracted or co-sourced internal audit actions.( Cooper,1986) By an external assessment operation, the resulting things to the management and the board of directors:- a) Judicious assertion about the efficacy of internal regulators over financial coverage, the precision and punctuality in logging transactions, the exactitude  and wholeness of financial and governing reports. B) An impartial and fair view of a bank’s deeds which includes its methods relation to financial exposure.

3.0 Analytical Procedure at CCE

The analytical procedure will be performed for Net profit margin and Return on equity for the company. The entire revenue and expense account will be audited to check the validity of these ratios. The logical methods which comprise of assessments of the monetary information collected during analysis of possible relations between both monetary and non-monetary data by our taxation homework help experts. The logical procedures consist of many things ranging from easy comparison to the complex patterns which involve many associations and data. The basic idea of the analytical methods is that possible associations between data may sensibly occur and can remain in the lack of conditions. The three methods that is used and which is major cause of change in the associations are accounting variations, business fluctuations, random deviations. Besides these substantiative test is also done after the analytical method.

The confidence of auditor on substantive tests to attain objective of an audit related to specific statement can be derived from analytical process, detail’s test or from both together. The auditor’s verdict on the estimated efficacy of the available methods decides the procedure(s) which is/are to be implemented to get the required objective. The audit proof which is acquired from the logical methods is not adequate for major risks involving material misstatement.

4.0 Financial statement Audit


The evidence collection is through important documents as some documents are necessary while doing an audit of the financial statements of the company. The property of the firm of accounting which is handling the audit part is the working papers. Officially these papers are named as Audit Documentation or at times as audit file. These documents are the proof of the audit procedure which is performed, evidence they got and the result or view the auditor has reached. (Antle,1982)

In order to give the clear idea about the work they have done (which also includes timing, amount, nature and the result of the performed audit),audit source and its proof obtained and the result they have got, the auditor must set up the documentation of audit in association with every meeting in sufficient and required details. These documents can be recorded on media like electronic media or any other media or may be on some paper. While transferring documentation to some other media, the auditor must use procedures to produce copy of the original document such that the form and content of the copied document is same as in original document.

5.0 Audit Risk Model

By executing SAS no. 99 the auditors can have a broad area of methods to identify frauds. The new criterion allows the auditor’s perception of scam flawlessly mixed into the audit methods and regularly rationalised till the completion of the audit. The processes which SAS- 99 designates to an auditor are, he should (1) collect information requisite to recognise risks of material misconception due to a scam (2) analyse these risks subsequently evaluating the bank’s programs and governance and (3) reacts to the findings. SAS-99 has empowered you to collect and analyse as much information needed to detect fraud risks than ever in the by-gone time.

SAS no 99 prompts auditors to overpower some natural behaviour, as over dependent on the client expectations, and prejudices and tackle the audit with a doubtful attitude and a mind full of questions. The auditor should not have any projections on the audit reports from his previous relations and should not fully trust each and every client. The new guideline also suggests auditors to implement a serious and doubtful attitude on their projects especially in an audit planning and assessment of the audit reports as per research done by our auditing assignment help experts.( Brown,1968)

SAS no. 99 entails the audit team to discover the reasons for the material misconception in the financial reports caused by scam prior to and through the information collecting methods. This thinking is an brand new perception in auditing works and firms will choose how to implement this process early in the stage of adoption. One should be careful that this perception is a must process and should be implemented with the same level of caution as in any other method.

The two major aim of the brainstorming procedure are, to have a strategy to detect and avoid scams by collecting information from experienced co-auditors about clients experience with them and the second aim entails to choose the appropriate attitude for piloting the audit. To shape the right level of professional attitude and to fix the ethics of the engagement is a bid for the condition that brainstorming should be done with a doubtful approach. .( Antle,1982)s It is believed that by having such an engagement ethics, the whole engagement will permeate thereby making the entire methods effective.

6.0 Primary Responsibilities


The auditor has been given the charge of making and then stating his views whether the financial statements documented by the management with the inaccuracy of those blamed with governance are displayed in proper order, in all material respects, and also in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles. Even after the audit neither the management nor the accused exploiting his governance is set free. The responsibilities are either conveyed through the engagement letter or any other bond or agreement having the terms of the engagement as per case study homework help experts. The auditor is the sole authority for carrying out the audit in conformity with the generally accepted auditing norms and that the audit is designed to achieve reasonable, quantified surety regarding the financial statements being free of material statements.( Antle,1982)

The auditor is accountable for passing on matters related to financial statement audit that are, in the auditor’s professional judgment, in accordance to the responsibilities of those charged with governance in mistaking the financial reporting process. The auditor does not exercise ways in case of general accepted standards of audit when for determining to communicate with the charged with governance. At relevant times the auditor is also liable for sharing particular matters as per the need of law & regulation, through a bond with the body or by additional requirements related to the engagement.





  • Annual report, CCE, 2012-13, retrieved on 13/09/2013
  • R Antle, ‘The auditor as an economic agent’, Journal of Accounting Research, Part 2, Volume 20, Issue 2, Autumn 1982.
  • APB Ethical Standard 1, Integrity, objectivity and independence, Auditing Practices Board, 2004.
  • M Baker and M Collins, ‘Audit and control in the not-for-profit sector: an endowed charity case 1739-1853’, Accounting and Business Research, Volume 35, Number 2, 2005.
  • M H Bazerman, G Loewenstein and D A Moore, ‘Why good accountants do bad audits’, Harvard Business Review, Volume 80, No 11, November 2002.
  • R Brown (ed.), A History of Accounting and Accountants, Edinburgh: T.T. and E.C. Jack, 1905;reprinted London: Frank Cass, 1968.
  • T Bush, ‘Divided by common language’, Where economics meets the law: US versus non-US financial reporting models, London: ICAEW, 2005. Part of the ICAEW’s Beyond the myth of Anglo-American corporate governance series, 2005.
  • Companies Act 1985, London: The Stationery Office, 1985.Company Law Reform White Paper, Department of Trade and Industry, London: The Stationery Office, March 2005.
  • E Cooper, ‘Chartered Accountants as auditors of companies’, Proceedings and resolutions of the first provincial meeting of the members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, held at Manchester on the 14th and 15th October 1986, pp73-94.
  • E Fama, ‘Agency problems and the theory of the firm’, Journal of Political Economy, Volume 88,Issue 2, pp288-307.