The distinction between the auditor and therefore the compliance officer isn’t always apparent. There are obvious parallels, and therefore the two have common characteristics with some overlap, so it’s fair to confuse them with almost fusion. In certain instances, they need to function together, but there are distinct variations.
One interesting difference is that an auditor will audit the tasks performed by an enforcement officer and confirm they are doing the proper thing, but that doesn’t work the opposite way around. this is often because the conformity officer’s position is restricted to organizational and regulatory risks, and therefore the auditor’s role encompasses all threats to the organization.
Sounds simple. But it’s not so. Here’s why!
Your compliance enforcement officer must be conversant in existing and future, possibly evolving regulatory legislation. this is often to line operating policies and procedures to be followed by relevant parties within or connected to the corporate to satisfy and stop any possible risks.
The enforcement officer focuses on regulatory and other criteria then sets a strong policy and procedure to be implemented and carried forward now.
The auditor shall review the policies and procedures defined then the parties concerned shall suits them. He monitors how tasks are done. Following this policy and procedural assessment, the auditor should make sure that all practices now meet this policy.
The auditor reviews existing practices, very similar to the Compliance Officer, and appears back to make sure that each one operations are administered consistent with defined policy and procedure.
His job isn’t unique to the corporate but covers all risks to the corporate .
Cooperation is vital
To operate efficiently, all organizations should pursue the cooperation of a team. Informing and advising on administrative enforcement, the compliance officer should preferably function intrinsically within the enterprise. By way of consistent communication, all team members should remember of their role in enforcement in the least times.
Although the enforcement officer and therefore the auditor should collaborate also, the auditor should remain autonomous to review procedures and supply assurance without prejudice.
It is also true that the roles are cross-cutting, and that they must function cooperatively, very similar to all roles during a successful company. we will see that the variations within the organization are still distinct and significant.
Depending on the applicability of the business rule, various sorts of the audit are available. Reviews such as:
- Tax Audit: the aim of the audit by section 44AB is to make a decision if various provisions of the Law on tax are complied with, and other requirements of the Law on tax are fulfilled. The taxpayer’s chartered accountant’s audit in compliance with section 44AB is mentioned because the tax audit.
- Statutory Audit: A statutory audit may be a sort of audit needed to make sure that books of accounts submitted to regulators and therefore the public are accurate and fair by regulation or statute. The statutory audit is compulsory if specific business requirements are met. A trained, independent accountant does it.
- Internal Audit: Internal Audit may be a company department or agency that gives an unbiased, objective analysis of structures, companies, and procedures during a company.
- Concurrent Audit: Auditing financial transactions routinely and promptly shall be performed annually to make sure precision, authenticity, adherence to procedures, and guidelines. the main target of the concurrent audit isn’t on test checks but substantial transaction checks.
- Stock Audit: Stock audit may be a term concerning the physical checking of inventory assets during a business or organization. counting on the intention, there are sorts of stock audits, and a special approach is required for each stock audit.
- GST Audit: GST Audit means a review of taxpayers’ returns, records, and other records. The GST audit’s objective is to make a decision if the turnover, the taxes charged, the ITC refund claimed, and therefore the ITC abuses mentioned within the annual report are valid or fair.