Respondents’ Perceptions on Quality Control Procedures for Statutory Financial Audit: A Survey

  • Mitrendu Narayan Roy
  • Siddhartha Sankar Saha


This chapter presents an empirical study on opinions of respondents including chartered accountants (CAs) and students pursuing chartered accountancy courses on select issues (in the form of statements in a structured questionnaire) relating to the quality control procedures for statutory financial audits and draws some conclusions on this theme. The research reveals that there are 21 factors governing the quality control procedures for statutory financial audit. Of these factors, a ‘nexus with management and negligence in duty’, ‘professional scepticism and physical inspection’, ‘role of accounting firm in designing quality control procedures’ and ‘engagement quality control review’ have significant influence. The theme as a whole is organized into two distinct dimensions: (a) ‘input factors to quality control procedures of audit in ensuring audit quality’, (b) ‘process factors to quality control procedures of audit in ensuring audit quality’. While the majority of the CAs consulted in the survey associate with ‘process factors to quality control procedures of audit in ensuring audit quality’, most students identify more closely with the ‘input factors to quality control procedures of audit in ensuring audit quality’.


Research Papers and Working Drafts

    Judiciary Case Decision

    1. Becker, C., DeFond, M., Jiambalvo, J., & Subhramanyam, K. (1998). The Effect of Audit Quality on Earnings Management. Contemporary Accounting Research, 15(1), 1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    2. Casterella, J., Jensen, K., & Knechel, W. (2009). Is Self-Regulated Peer Review Effective at Signalling Audit Quality. The Accounting Review, 84(3), 713–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    3. Choi, J., Kim, C., Kim, J., & Zang, Y. (2010). Audit Office Size, Audit Quality and Audit Pricing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 29(1), 73–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    4. Defond, M., & Lennox, C. (2011). The Effect of SOX on Small Auditor Exists and Audit Quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 52, 21–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    5. Deis, D., & Giroux, G. (1992). Determinants of Audit Quality in the Public Sector. The Accounting Review, 67(3), 462–479Google Scholar
    6. Francis, J. (2004). What Do We Know About Audit Quality? The British Accounting Review, 36, 345–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    7. Jeong, S., & Rho, J. (2004). Big Six Auditors and Audit Quality: The Korean Evidence. The International Journal of Accounting, 29(4), 175–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    8. Lennox, C. (1999b). Non-audit Fees, Disclosure and Audit Quality. The European Accounting Review, 8(2), 239–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    9. Lin, J., & Hwang, M. (2010). Audit Quality, Corporate Governance and Earnings Management: A Meta Analysis. International Journal of Accounting, 14, 57–77Google Scholar
    10. Tendeloo, B., & Vanstraelen, A. (2008). Earnings Management and Audit Quality in Europe: Evidence from the Private Client Segment Market. European Accounting Review, 17(3), 447–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    11. VanderBauwhede, H., & Willekens, M. (2004). Evidence on (the Lack of) Audit-Quality Differentiation in the Private Client Segment of the Belgian Audit Market. European Accounting Review, 13(3), 501–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    12. Weber, J., Willenborg, M., & Zhang, J. (2008). Does Auditor Reputation Matter? The Case of KPMG Germany and Com Road AG. Journal of Accounting Research, 46(4), 941–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    13. Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs. Praveen Kumar Katyal, 1/2009 (Delhi High Court 2011)Google Scholar
    14. Gurugobinda Basu vs. Sankari Prasad Ghosal, 1964 AIR 254, 1964 SCR (4) 311 (Supreme Court of India 1963)Google Scholar
    15. P. Rama Krishna vs. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, 1721/ 2010 (Delhi High Court 2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mitrendu Narayan Roy
    • 1
  • Siddhartha Sankar Saha
    • 2
  1. 1.Goenka College of Commerce and Business AdministrationUniversity of CalcuttaKolkataIndia
  2. 2.Department of CommerceUniversity of CalcuttaKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations