Audit Programme


The auditor should prepare a written audit programme setting forth the procedures that are  needed  to  implement  the  audit  plan.  The  programme  may  also  contain  the  audit objectives for each area and should have sufficient details to serve as a set of instructions to the assistants involved in the audit and as a means to control the proper execution of the work.

In preparing the audit programme, the auditor, having an understanding of the accounting system  and  related  internal  controls,  may  wish  to  rely  on  certain  internal  controls  in determining the  nature, timing and extent of required auditing procedures. The auditor may conclude that relying  on certain internal controls is an effective and efficient way to conduct his audit. However,  the auditor may decide not to rely on internal controls when there are other more efficient ways of obtaining sufficient appropriate audit evidence. The auditor  should  also  consider  the  timing  of  the  procedures,  the  coordination  of  any assistance expected from the client, the availability of assistants, and the involvement of other auditors or experts.


The  auditor  normally  has  flexibility  in  deciding  when  to  perform  audit  procedures. However,  in some cases, the auditor may have no discretion as to timing, for example, when observing the taking of inventories by client personnel or verifying the securities and cash balances at the year-end.


The audit planning ideally commences at the conclusion of the previous year’s audit, and along with the related programme, it should be reconsidered for modification as the audit progresses. Such consideration is based on the auditor’s review of the internal control, his preliminary   evaluation   thereof,  and  the  results  of  his  compliance  and  substantive procedures.

It is desirable that in respect of each audit and more particularly for bigger audits an audit programme should be drawn up. Audit programme is nothing but a list of examination and verification steps to be applied set out in such a way that the inter-relationship of one step to  another  is clearly shown and designed, keeping in view the assertions discernible in the  statements  of  account  produced  for  audit  or  on  the  basis  of  an  appraisal  of  the accounting records of the client. In other words, an audit programme is a detailed plan of applying  the  audit   procedures  in  the  given  circumstances  with  instructions  for  the appropriate techniques to be  adopted for accomplishing the audit objectives. Businesses vary in nature, size and composition; work which is suitable to one business may not be suitable to others; efficiency and operation of internal controls and the exact nature of the service to be rendered by the auditor are the other  factors that vary from assignment to assignment. Because of such variations, evolving one audit  programme applicable to all business under all circumstances is not practicable. However it  becomes a necessity to specify in detail in the audit programme the nature of work to be done so that no time will be wasted on matters not pertinent to the engagement and any special matter  or any specific situation can be taken care of.

To start with, an auditor having regard to the nature, size and composition of the business and the dependability of the internal control and the given scope of work, should frame a programme  which should aim at providing for a minimum essential work which may be termed as a  standard  programme. As experience is gained by actually carrying out the work,  the  programme  may  be  altered  to  take  care  of  situations  which  were  left  out originally, but are found relevant for the particular concern. Similarly, if any work originally provided for proves beyond doubt to be unnecessary or irrelevant, it may be dropped. The assistant engaged in the job should be encouraged to keep an open mind beyond the programme given to him. He should be instructed to note and report significant matters coming to his notice, to his seniors or to the partners or proprietor of the firm engaged for doing the audit.

There should be periodic review of the audit programme to assess whether the same continues  to  be  adequate  for  obtaining  requisite  knowledge  and  evidence  about  the transactions. Unless this is done, any change in the business policy of the client may not be adequately known, and consequently, audit work may be carried on, on the basis of an obsolete programme and, for this negligence, the whole audit may be held as negligently conducted and the auditor may have to face legal consequences. For example, if the audit programme for the audit  of a branch of a financing house, drawn up a number of years ago, fails to take into consideration that the previous policy of financing of a vehicle has been  changed  to  financing   of  real  estate  acquisition,  the  whole  audit  conducted thereunder would be entirely  misdirected  and may even result into nothing more than a farce. [Pacific Acceptance Corporation Ltd. v. Forsyth and Others.]


The utility of the audit programme can be retained and enhanced only by keeping the programme as also the client’s operations and internal control under periodic review so that  inadequacies or redundancies of the programme may be removed. However, as a basic feature, audit programme not only lists the tasks to be carried out but also contains a few relevant instructions, like the extent of checking, the sampling plan, etc. So long as the programme is not  officially changed by the principal, every assistant deputed on the job should unfailingly carry out  the detailed work according to the instructions governing the  work.  Many  persons  believe  that  this  brings  an  element  of  rigidity  in  the  audit programme. This is not true provided the periodic review mentioned earlier is undertaken to keep  the programme as up-to-date as possible and by encouraging the assistants on the job to observe all salient features of the various accounting functions of the client.

An audit programme consists of a series of verification procedures to be applied to the financial  statements  and  accounts  of  a  given  company  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining sufficient  evidence  to enable the auditor to express an informed opinion on such statements. For the purpose of programme construction, the following points should be kept in view :

1.    Stay within the scope and limitation of the assignment.


2.    Determine the evidence reasonably available and identify the best evidence for deriving the necessary satisfaction.

3.    Apply only these steps and procedures which are useful in accomplishing the verification purpose in the specific situation.

4.    Consider all possibilities of error.

5.    Co-ordinate the procedures to be applied to related items.


Amplification is not necessary of the above points except the one under evidence : that is the  very basis for formulation of opinion and an audit programme is designed to provide for that by  prescribing procedures and techniques. What is best evidence for testing the accuracy  of any  assertion  is  a  matter of  expert  knowledge  and  evidence.  This  is  the primary task before the auditor when he draws up the audit programme. Transactions are varied in nature and impact;  procedures to be prescribed depend on prior knowledge of what evidence is reasonably available in respect of each transaction.


By  evidence  we  mean  the  material,  documentary  or  otherwise,  available  to  prove  or disprove  the assertions made in the statement of accounts through the entries in the books of account. For example sales is evidenced by :


i.           invoices raised by the client;

ii.          price list;

(iv)  stock-issue records;

 (iv)  stock-issue records;

(v)   sales managers’ advice to the stock section;


(vi)   acknowledgements of the receipt of goods by the customers, and


(vii)  collection of money against sales by the client.


In  most  of  the  assertions  much  of  the  evidence  be  drawn  and  each  one  should  be considered and weighed to ascertain its weight to prove or disprove the assertion. In this process, an auditor would be in a position to identify the evidence that brings the highest satisfaction to him about the appropriateness or otherwise of the assertion.


You may recall from chapter 2 on basic concepts in auditing that an auditor picks up evidence from a variety of fields and it is generally of the following broad types :

(a)   Documentary examination

(b)   Physical examination

(c)   Statements and explanation of management, officials and employees

(d)   Statements and explanations of third parties

(e)   Arithmetical calculations by the auditor

(f)    State of internal controls and internal checks

(g)   Inter-relationship of the various accounting data

(h)   Subsidiary and memorandum records

(i)    Minutes

(j)    Subsequent action by the client and by others.


By “good evidence” we mean a highly satisfactory evidence available without any special effort or  cost. For cash in hand the best evidence is ‘count’; in respect of investment pledged with a  bank, the banker’s certificate. For verifying assertions about book debts, the client’s ledger invoices, debit notes, credit notes, monthly accounts statement sent to the customers are all evidence : some of these are corroborative, other being complemen- tary. In addition, balance  confirmation procedure is often resorted to, to obtain greater satisfaction  about  the  reliability  of  the  assertion.  The  auditor,  however,  has  to  place appropriate  weight  on  each  piece  of  evidence  and  accordingly  should  prescribe  the priority of verification. It is true that in all cases one procedure may not bring the highest satisfaction and it may be dangerous for the auditor to ignore any evidence that is available. By the word “available” we do not mean that the evidence available with the client is the only available evidence. The auditor should know what normally should be available in the context of the transaction having regard to the circumstances and usage. For testing the authenticity of the client as regards amount lying with bank, the auditor  adopts the following procedure :


1.    Examination of the counterfoils of cheques and paying-in-slips and comparing them with the entries in the concerned ledger account of the client.

2.    Checking the castings, carry over and balances of the ledger account.

 3.    Comparison of the entries in the ledger with the bank statement (this is the reproduction of the ledger account maintained by the bank for recording the transactions with the cli- ent).

4.    Examination of the bank reconciliation statement to know the items that explain the difference, if any, between the balance shown by client’s ledger and the bank statement.

5.    Scrutiny of the subsequent period’s bank statement to ensure that items entering for reconciliation have been duly entered by the bank on clearance or presentation.

6.    Verification of official confirmation of the balance by the bank.


If you analyse these procedures, you will see that each provides the auditor with some evidence  which by itself is not adequate even if the result is satisfactory. The first one proves that the entries conform to the underlying records, but the prima facie authenticity of the underlying record is corroborated by a checking of the bank statement. The second provides evidence of the arithmetical accuracy. Procedure under step four, screens the items of difference between the two records and the bonafide of that statement is proved by step five. Sixth and the last step is most significant because the reliability of the bank statement is much enhanced by confirmation of the balance on a specified date made by a responsible  official  of  the  bank.  But  all  these  cannot  give  the  auditor  a  degree  of confidence or conclusiveness because he has no access to the bank’s books and records. Therefore,  he  must  be  contended   with  the  best  available  evidence  to  arrive  at  a reasonable opinion.


At times, the available evidence on a single assertion may be found to be contradictory. For  example,  sales  in  quantity and  value,  as  evidenced  by  some  of  the  procedures enumerated  above, may not be corroborated by a quantitative analysis of the opening stock, production, sales and closing stock. In such a situation, it would be the duty of the auditor to call for the explanation of the management before he accepts or rejects any of the contradictory evidence for  the purpose of formulation of his opinion on the particular matter. Only by properly considering  and evaluating the explanation of the management, the auditor is in such a situation as would  enable him to accept or reject any of the evidence.