Thank you, Bob, for finally admitting that Cemtrex was a client of Bharat Parikh and Associates. I just set the door a-swingin’. You’re the one who walked straight into it. The PCAOB report revealed that BPA had only two issuer audit clients. You have confirmed that Cemtrex was one of them. Here is what the report had to say about client Issuer A and client Issuer B:
The audit deficiencies that reached this level of significance are described below.
Issuer A
(1) the failure to perform sufficient procedures to test the occurrence and valuation of revenue (AS No. 14, paragraph 30);
(2) the failure to perform sufficient procedures to test equity (AS No. 13, paragraph 8); and
(3) the failure to perform sufficient procedures to test the existence of cash (AS No. 13, paragraph 8).
Issuer B
(1) the failure to perform sufficient procedures to test the occurrence and valuation of revenue (AS No. 13, paragraphs 8 and 11; AS No. 15, paragraph 27);
(2) the failure to perform sufficient procedures to test the existence of accounts receivable (AS No. 13, paragraphs 8 and 11; AU 330, paragraphs .34 and .35); and
(3) the failure to perform sufficient procedures to test the existence and valuation of inventory (AS No. 13, paragraph 8; AU 331, paragraph .09; AU 342, paragraph .04).
It makes no difference if Cemtrex is Issuer A or Issuer B. The PCAOB said of the audits of both issuers that there was a “failure to perform sufficient procedures to test the occurrence and valuation of revenue”. Therefore, the revenue numbers cannot be relied upon.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
