10-02-2009, 03:38 PM
@ above
yes certainly m referring the situation when auditor is required to give opinion on FS under IFRSs and related laws, etc, bt i gave that jst as an example
and of course ISA 620 "Using the work of an expert" requires the auditor to actually verify the assumptions and contents of valuation report.
it goes as under
Evaluating the Work of the Expert
12. The auditor should evaluate the appropriateness of the expertâs work as audit evidence regarding the assertion being considered. This will involve evaluation of whether the substance of the expertâs findings is properly reflected in the financial statements or supports the assertions, and consideration of
i)Source data used;
ii)Assumptions and methods used and their consistency with prior periods; and
iii)Results of the expertâs work in the light of the auditorâs overall knowledge
of the business and of the results of other audit procedures.
13. When considering whether the expert has used source data which is appropriate in the circumstances, the auditor would consider the following procedures
(a) Making inquiries regarding any procedures undertaken by the expert to establish whether the source data is relevant and reliable.
(b) Reviewing or testing the data used by the expert.
14. The appropriateness and reasonableness of assumptions and methods used and their application are the responsibility of the expert. The auditor does not have the same expertise and, therefore, cannot always challenge the expertâs assumptions and methods. However, the auditor will need to obtain an understanding of the assumptions and methods used and to consider whether they are appropriate and reasonable, based on the auditorâs knowledge of the business and the results of other audit procedures. ( I hope this clarifies my point )
15. If the results of the expertâs work do not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence or if the results are not consistent with other audit evidence, the auditor should resolve the matter. This may involve discussions with the entity and the expert, applying additional audit procedures, including possibly engaging another expert, or modifying the auditorâs report.
I hope m able to clear my point and of course certification under capital issue Rules is not an audit.
Regards.
yes certainly m referring the situation when auditor is required to give opinion on FS under IFRSs and related laws, etc, bt i gave that jst as an example
and of course ISA 620 "Using the work of an expert" requires the auditor to actually verify the assumptions and contents of valuation report.
it goes as under
Evaluating the Work of the Expert
12. The auditor should evaluate the appropriateness of the expertâs work as audit evidence regarding the assertion being considered. This will involve evaluation of whether the substance of the expertâs findings is properly reflected in the financial statements or supports the assertions, and consideration of
i)Source data used;
ii)Assumptions and methods used and their consistency with prior periods; and
iii)Results of the expertâs work in the light of the auditorâs overall knowledge
of the business and of the results of other audit procedures.
13. When considering whether the expert has used source data which is appropriate in the circumstances, the auditor would consider the following procedures
(a) Making inquiries regarding any procedures undertaken by the expert to establish whether the source data is relevant and reliable.
(b) Reviewing or testing the data used by the expert.
14. The appropriateness and reasonableness of assumptions and methods used and their application are the responsibility of the expert. The auditor does not have the same expertise and, therefore, cannot always challenge the expertâs assumptions and methods. However, the auditor will need to obtain an understanding of the assumptions and methods used and to consider whether they are appropriate and reasonable, based on the auditorâs knowledge of the business and the results of other audit procedures. ( I hope this clarifies my point )
15. If the results of the expertâs work do not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence or if the results are not consistent with other audit evidence, the auditor should resolve the matter. This may involve discussions with the entity and the expert, applying additional audit procedures, including possibly engaging another expert, or modifying the auditorâs report.
I hope m able to clear my point and of course certification under capital issue Rules is not an audit.
Regards.
