International Standard Auditing and Audit Evidence
ISA8 describe
audit evidence as:
“Audit evidence
means the information obtained by the auditor in arriving at the conclusions on
which the audit opinion is based. Audit evidence comprises source documents and
accounting records rendering the financial statements and corroborating
informations from other sources.”
ISA8 requires
that an auditor should obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence through the
compliance procedures and substantive procedures to enable him to draw
reasonable conclusions therefore to form the basis of his opinion on the
financial statements.
ISA8 contains
three important standards relating to nature and sources of audit evidences:
(a) ISA8.2: The
auditor should obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to be able to draw
reasonable conclusions on which to base the audit opinion.
(b) ISA8.10:
When obtaining audit evidence from tests of control, the auditor should
consider the sufficiency and appropriateness of the audit evidence to support
the assessed level of control risks.
(c) ISA8.12:
When obtaining audit evidence from substantive procedures, the auditor should
consider the extent to which the evidence supports the relevant financial
statement assertions.
Sufficient
Appropriate Audit Evidence
Sufficient and
appropriateness are interrelated and apply to both tests of controls and
substantive procedures:
a. Sufficiency
is the measure of the quantity of audit evidence.
b.
Appropriateness is the measure of the quality or reliability of the audit
evidence.
The auditing
standard points out that the quantity of audit evidence required cannot be
prescribed but is a matter of professional judgement. Factors influencing the
decision include:
1. Auditor’s
assessment of the nature and level of inherent risks at both the financial
statement level and the account balance or class of transactions level.
2. Nature of the
accounting and internal control system and the assessment of control risk.
3. Materiality
of the item being examined.
4. Experience
gained during previous audit.
5. Result of
auditing procedures.
6. Source and
reliability of information available.
If the auditor
is unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit-evidence, the auditor should
consider the need to qualify his audit report.
Test of Control
Test of control
means tests performed by the auditor to obtain audit evidence about the
suitability of design and effective operation of the accounting and internal
control system:
(a) Design: The
accounting and internal control system are suitably designed to prevent or
detecting and correcting material misstatements.
(b) Operation:
The systems exist and have operated effectively throughout the relevant period.
Substantive
Procedures: Substantive procedures mean tests performed to obtain audit
evidence to detect material misstatement in the financial statement.
Procedures for
Obtaining Audit Evidence
An auditor
obtains audit evidence by conducting one or more for the following procedures.
1. Inspection
2. Observation
3. Inquiry
4. Confirmation
5. Computation
6. Analytic
procedures
1. Inspection:
Consists of
examination of client’s records, documents or tangible assets. The reliability
of audit evidence obtained by inspection of records and documents varies
according to the nature or source and effectiveness of internal control over
their processing. Three major categories of documentary audit evidence exist,
given here in descending degree of reliability as audit evidence.
a. Created and
provided to auditor by third parties.
b. Created by
third parties and held by entity.
c. Created and
held by entity.
Inspection of
tangible assets provides reliable audit evidence about their existence but not
necessary as to their ownership or value.
2. Observation:
Observation
involves looking at a procedure while it is being performed by others. The
standard examples of observation are attendance at the wages payments,
stocktaking, general security measures including high risk areas like computer
centre, directorate’s office. Observation tests are generally compliance
assurance because the client’s staff may be on their best when auditor is
watching and less conscientious at other times.
3. Enquiry:
Enquiry involves
seeking information from client’s staff or external sources. Enquiries may
range from formal written ones to third parties to oral ones to persons inside
the entity. Responses may provide the auditor with:
(a) information
not previously possessed; or
(b) corroborator
audit evidence
4. Confirmation:
Confirmation
aims to verify what is shown in client’s accounting records. Examples of
confirmation include direct confirmation by debtors, banks, creditors, lawyers,
etc. The strength of the evidence depends on the knowledge and integrity of the
source. Internal anguishes may be part of either compliance testing of
substantive testing approaches but most external request for confirmations are
example of substantively based exquisites.
5. Computation:
Computation
includes checking the arithmetical accuracy of source documents, depreciation
calculations, payroll deductions, reconciliation’s inventory valuation, control
accounts etc. So the auditor carries out computational audit test during both
the compliance and substantive phase of the audit.
6. Analytic
procedures:
Analytical
procedures consist of analysis of significant ratios and trends including
resulting investigation of fluctuation and relationship that are inconstant
with other relevant information or deviate from predicted amounts.
Common Law
Evidence in Auditing
Common law evidence
rules determine what facts are relevant to a particular issue before a court,
which party is required to prove, what material can be tendered to and accepted
by a court as evidence. The burden of providing evidence rests upon a party to
proceedings to issue. Failure by such a party to adduce sufficient evidence on
an issue would result in the case being lost. Such a party, however is not
required to produce absolute evidence. Any single piece of cogent evidence can
be sufficient to satisfy the burden of proof cast upon him. Evidence will be
considered by a court only if it is both.
(a) Relevant to
the issue before the court and
(b) Is capable
of being admissible as evidence.
The evidence
which is admissible can be oral, documentary or real.
Concludingly,
common law evidences requirements are:
a. Evidence
should be reasonably admissible
b. Evidence
should be relevant
c. Evidence
should be provided by the party claiming existence of certain facts.
d. Evidence may
be oral or documentary
e. Failure to
adduce evidence results in loosing the case
The main
principles or rules of common law evidence are equally applicable in auditing
on account of similarity of action. In common law, the judge is to decide the
acceptance or otherwise of evidence which must be sufficient and admissible.
Same is the situation with auditing. The auditor has to decide the sufficiency
and acceptability of evidence and the client is required to produce evidence.
Which may be oral or documentary.
In auditing a
client must prove by sufficient evidence the facts that have been recorded in
his books of accounts and must prove their correctness, authentically
genuineness and relevancy to the business of the undertaking. If he so succeeds
and the evidence is admissible the auditor shall accept such evidence,
otherwise the same will be liable to be rejected. Thus common law rules and
principles of evidence are equally applicable in auditing.
Comments
Post a Comment