Fixed Assets

Internal Audit Report

Audit period: April 2019 – December 2019
 Summary of audit findings
S. No. Audit Findings Ratings
1. Inaccurate records in ‘Fixed assets register’ report High

page 2
 Inaccurate records in ‘Fixed assets register’ report High
Observation:
Disposal of 4 cars appear in Fixed Assets register (FAR) as at December 31, 2019 however as per documentation, process of
such disposal initiated around March 2020. This may result in understatement of cost and book value (if any) of such assets
as at reporting period. Below are the details of such instances:

Asset Id Description Cost

GSMP/FA-0000157 Honda City - AHP-132 847,625
GSMP/FA-0000158 Honda City - AHH-720 847,500
GSMP/FA-0000712 Honda Civic - ATP-592 1,762,000
GSMP/FA-0000865 Honda Civic - ATC-683 1,849,000
Recommendation:
Post-Implementation review to evaluate the effectiveness of the ERP system should be conducted preferably by an
independent entity (as already recommended in audit report of “Information Technology” function)

Management Response:
The actual transaction of disposal occurred in March 2020 and was depicted in the general ledger in the month of March
2020. Further, the general ledger is the main source for preparation of the accounts. However, the ERP reports for balance
sheet items are run on “ As on” basis which are run on the current date even if we ask the system to provide back dated
reports. This is apparently the matter in this case too. However, we shall discuss this issue with the IT department, if it can
be resolved keeping the current configuration of the system. As we do not run any report back dated, therefore, this issue
was not highlighted before. Request to redefne as complete.

Responsibility for implementation: CFO

page 3
Prior Years Audit Findings
 Summary of prior years audit findings
S. No. Audit Findings Status
1. Absence of certain policies and procedures Not implemented
2. Write-offs not recorded for missing, damaged, theft and obsolete assets Not implemented
3. Inefficient insurance management process Not implemented
4. Assets disposal not recorded timely in the general ledger Not applicable
Useful life of assets not in accordance with SOP and International Accounting Standards
5. Dropped
‘16’ definition
6. Incorrect accounting treatment for de-recognition of assets Not implemented
7. Discrepancies in acquisition and disposal process of immovable properties Pending
Implemented &
8. Discrepancies in Fixed Assets register
Dropped
Inconsistent Fixed Assets procurement and disposal policy in Finance and Procurement
9. Implemented
manual
10. Functionality of ERP not used Not implemented
Partially
11. Non compliance of SOPs
implemented
12. Transfer of title of vehicle sold and handed over, not ensured in name of buyer Not implemented
Annexes

page 5
 Absence of certain policies and procedures High
Observation:
Policies and procedures / guidelines not exist regarding fixed assets as mentioned below:
a) Accountability / reasoning and preventive controls for missing, damaged and theft assets.
b) Recording of fixed assets physically exist on company’s premises but not exist in fixed assets register i.e. floor to list
verification. Instances noted where 6 assets (Photocopy machines, Air conditioners) physically present at company’s
premises but not exist in fixed assets register. Refer annex A1 for details.
c) Replacement / retention policy for laptop / IT equipment covering duration and conditions on which procurement and
issuances of laptops to eligible users. As per fixed assets register/list, following instances noted:
i. In 4 cases, New Laptops issued to users within 8-11 months of previous New Laptop issuances. Refer annex A2
for details.
ii. In 8 cases, more than one laptops issued to single users. Refer annex A3 for details.
iii. 23 laptops available in pool having new/good condition. Refer annex A4 for details.
iv. 60 laptops available in pool having poor/damaged condition. Refer annex A5 for details.
v. 2 damaged/obsolete Servers (FA-0000541 & FA-0001042) costing Rs. 1 million are held in the inventory.
d) Types of assets for classification as ‘computer accessories’ and ‘office equipment’. Instances noted where same asset
types are classified in different category resulting in different depreciation rates for same asset type. Refer annex A6
for details.
e) Documentation and process in case of assets theft/lost. Instances noted where such theft/missing assets are appearing
cleared in CPLC.

Recommendation:
Policies and related procedures / guidelines should be documented.

page 6
 Absence of certain policies and procedures High
Management Response:
a) Finance: Refer to IT and Admin.
Admin: Accountability / reasoning and preventive controls for missing, damaged and theft assets will be defined as per
applicable policy.
IT: Policies and related procedures / guidelines will be documented for Accountability / reasoning and preventive
controls for missing, damaged and theft assets .
b) Finance: We only capitalized those items which GSM Procure. It was part of the contract and as per agreement. No
separate cost was paid for these AC’s.
c) Finance: Refer to IT
IT: Although laptop/IT equipment policies do exist but are somewhat vague on many aspects. These policies will further
be revised and enriched to cover the scenarios better. However, responses to the presented issues are as follows:
(i) Laptops were issued on relevant HOD requests.
(ii) An updated list will be provided on request. Except 2 laptops all have been returned.
(iii) Currently 22 laptops are in IT pool. Only 10 are in good condition. IT needs to have some backup equipment in
case of ad hoc requirements.
(iv/v) Laptops/Servers with bad/damaged condition have been listed for dispose-off.
d) Finance: It is difficult to mention each and every item in the SOP. We can give guidelines to Supply chain who is
actually responsible to open the Item Master in the system.

Responsibility for implementation: CFO/Head of Admin & HR/Head of IT, immediate

page 7
 Absence of certain policies and procedures High
Status as at Dec 2019: Not implemented
a) Admin/IT: Not implemented. Policies and procedures / guidelines not documented regarding accountability / reasoning
and preventive controls for missing, damaged and theft assets in accordance with management response.
b) Finance: Not implemented. No process exist/document for recording fixed assets other than procurement
c) IT: Not implemented. Replacement / retention policy for laptop / IT equipment not documented.
d) Finance: Types of assets for classification as ‘computer accessories’ and ‘office equipment’ not documented. However,
no further instances identified during the period.

Follow-up management response:

e) Admin: Recommended policy is in process.
IT: IT can suggest the preventive measures for accountability for missing, damage or theft assets, whereas these
suggestions can be incorporated with policies, by privilege departments. However, IT is keeping a list of all IT related
equipments and reconcile with the Finance Department and physical asset verification is also done on an annual basis
along with the Finance Department.
b) Finance: Our response is same as previously given. We capitalize those items which we procure. We have reported
these machine as damaged and they are about to be disposed off – Point to be dropped
c) IT: We are working on it and will be able to complete it by December 2020. Instances are already answered.
d) Finance: Our response is same i.e It is difficult to mention each and every item in the SOP. We can give guidelines to
Supply chain who is actually responsible to open the Item Master in the system. Point to be dropped. Procedural
guideline discussed and agreed with supply chain Request to redefine as complete. (relevant SOP is attached).

page 8
 Write-offs not recorded for missing, damaged, theft and
Medium
obsolete assets
Observation:
As per clause 3.3.2 of chapter 7, Fixed Assets policy of Finance department: ‘Fixed Assets which shall be considered to be
obsolete, unserviceable, uneconomical in use, or have been otherwise determined to be non-existent due to theft,
misplacement or loss, shall be written off as and when so assessed.’ however no such policy is followed, due to which
damaged, obsolete, missing and theft assets costing Rs 22 million exist in fixed assets register (FAR) resulting in
overstatement of cost of assets. Following figures extracted from fixed assets register:
a) Damaged assets: 209 damaged assets costing Rs 14 million, including 54 damaged laptops costing Rs. 3.35 million.
Refer annex B1 for details.
b) Obsolete assets: 6 intangible obsolete assets costing Rs 4.9 million. Refer annex B2 for details.
c) Missing assets: 20 missing assets costing Rs 1.57 million. Refer annex B3 for details.
d) Theft assets: 13 out of 14 theft assets costing 1.5 million, write-off not recorded. Refer annex B4 for details.
Recommendation:
Write-offs for missing, damaged, theft and obsolete assets should be recorded in accordance with policy.
Management Response:
Finance:
e) We have already identified 209 damage asset during physical verification conducted in Feb & Mar 2019. FA report
has already been shared with the Internal Audit. All Damaged Items reports were also shared with IT/ Admin and
Supply Chain department for necessary action on damage assets for record impairment. We can only act after the
approval is received from concerned department.
f) 6 intangible assets reported to IT department, we have written-off these obsolete items in May 2019.
c) Missing assets details already shared with concerned departments and Internal Audit. We will be able to write-off
these assets after the advice is received from Dept.
d) These assets list has been shared with concerned department and IA and we are waiting for their response.

page 9
 Write-offs not recorded for missing, damaged, theft and
Medium
obsolete assets
Admin:
a, c & d) For damage, missing/ theft assets, finance should proceed as per their policy.
IT:
a) Lists are prepared and after physical verification of items we will provide go-ahead to Finance.
c) Mentioned Item (GSMP/FA-0001819) is not an IT asset.
d) In listed 7-13 item are related to IT and FIR is shared with SCM.
Responsibility for implementation: CFO, immediate

Status as at Dec 2019: Not implemented

a, c & d) Moreover, Additional 70 assets damaged and 1 Tablet PC theft during the audit period (as per FAR).
b) Two outdated/expired software exist in FAR (DHIS II & ARcGIS)

Follow-up management response:

Finance:
a, c & d) All Theft/missing item lists have been approved and we have written them off on 30-6-2020. damaged items to
be disposed by Admin/IT. We will dispose once we received information from these dept. From the accounting standards
point of view, the audit observation is correct. However, there are some practical issues involved, the biggest one is
following up with the relevant department. The problem can be solved by keeping memorandum records but that will also
hamper the process of follow up. We would request IA to advice a system where by the practical issue can be resolved
according to the best practices.

page 10
 Write-offs not recorded for missing, damaged, theft and
Medium
obsolete assets
Admin:
a) Disposal of damaged items has been approved by management, we will proceed the process in due course.
c & d) Missing and theft assets are written off by finance, approval has been shared.
IT:
a) Same as Finance response- Point need to be closed
b) ARcGIS was being used by MIS department and is suggested for dispose-off, refer to Finance. DHIS is already
under discussion in the audit committee.

page 11
 Inefficient insurance management process High
Observation:
Insurance management process not efficiently followed. Following instances noted:
a) 13 out of 14 cases, fixed assets costing around Rs 1.5 million (sum insured around 1.5 million), theft (as per fixed assets
register) over the period from year 2014 till 2019, however insurance claims of such assets are not yet
received/processed/initiated. Refer annex B4 for details.
b) No guidelines for valuation of assets insured. As a result, premium paid for period July 18 to June 19 on average approx.
Rs. 1.9 million instead of approx 1 million. It is observed that:
i. Insurance premium paid either on cost of assets or higher value instead of its respective book value.
ii. 102 Obsolete / damaged office & computer equipment are insured at its full / major cost valuing Rs. 6 million.
c) No monitoring / cross check over insured assets list shared by insurer. Instances noted where information with insurer
not matched with list shared by GSM which may result in a conflict at the time of claim.
d) As per clause 4.1, chapter 6 ‘Insurance management’ of Procurement manual, ‘Premium shall be paid on quarterly basis
to the Insurance Company’ however, payment for insurance premium is made on bi-annual in contravention with SOP.

Recommendation:
e) Matter should be investigated and proper action should be taken.
f) Guidelines should be prepared for assets insured in terms of it condition and value.
g) Proper monitoring should be done for accuracy of data/information against data/information forwarded to insurer.
h) SOP should be followed.

page 12
 Inefficient insurance management process High
Management Response:
a) We have updated our response in the attached Annexure “B4”.
b) & c) Each custodian department is responsible for registration, listing, monitoring, safe keeping, valuation and disposal
of assets under their control. Guidelines for valuation are defined in respective departmental SOPs, Supply Chain shares
the information provided by custodian department with Insurer for cover.
d) This practice is as per negotiated terms and conditions and any change may affect Premium paid to insurance companies,
we are adding this contingency to our SOP to maintain flexibility in negotiations.
Responsibility for implementation: Head of Supply chain.

Status as at Dec 2019:

a,b&c) Not implemented. Insurance amount not claimed/ received for assets theft / stollen as referred in annex-B4. Further,
for b&c, guidelines for valuation of assets insured not documented.
d) Implemented
Follow-up management response:
a) Custodian departments has taken write-off approvals for stolen, missing and theft fixed assets. Approval memo attached
as evidence.
b&c) A new practice is incorporated in the SOP as, “Supply chain will conduct a asset market value assessment exercise
upon the assets list provided by the Custodian Department once a year and will engage an independent asset valuation
surveyor to ascertain assets market value and the same shall be submitted to custodian department for their ratification and
approval. The final information received from the custodian departments shall be forwarded to the insurance company as
declaration of assets.”

page 13
 Assets disposal not recorded timely in the general ledger Low
Observation:
In 20 (100%) out of 20 cases (assets) sampled, disposals (cost 0.86 million) and its sales proceeds are not recorded in the
period of disposals, i.e. disposals made during the month of July 2018 but recorded in the month of December 2018
resulting in delay of 5 months. This may result in incorrect record of those assets and its respective depreciation expense if
any. Refer annex C for details.

Recommendation:
Assets disposed off should be recorded timely in the fixed assets register.

Management Response:
Finance: Assets and other items were requested to be disposed off by admin department during shifting from Landhi CWH
to new CWH. Asset tag no’s were not mentioned in disposal form against majority of assets. Therefore, delay occurred in
identification and reconciling of those asset.

Responsibility for implementation: CFO

Status as at Dec 2019: Not applicable. No disposal occurred during the period concerned.
Follow-up management response: We dispose off items after we received complete information from the relevant
department. However, Finance will make it follow up procedure stronger. Point to be closed.

page 14
 Useful life of assets not in accordance with SOP and
Low
International Accounting Standards (IAS) ‘16’ definition
Observation:
As per the company’s manual and International Accounting Standards (IAS) 16, “useful life shall refer to the period over
which an asset shall be expected to be available for use by the company”. However, during the period, 45 assets amounting
to Rs 2.4 million procured for HIV project, which are not depreciated over the expected useful life of these assets available
with the company (i.e. remaining useful life of the project which is 2 years). Instead, these are depreciated over normal
useful life of 3 to 5 years.

Recommendation:
Useful life of assets should be in accordance with SOP and International Accounting Standards ‘16’ definition.

Management Response:
We follow standard Company Policy which is in the context of the company’s manuals, useful life shall refer to the period
over which an asset shall be expected to be available for use by the company. Our intention is to keep the assets till its
useful life as we use other company assets. There is no separate policy for assets acquired for different project having
different useful life.

Responsibility for implementation: No further action required.

Status as at Dec 2019: Dropped

page 15
 Incorrect accounting treatment for de-recognition of assets Medium
Observation:
As per general accounting principle, assets should be de-recognized if it cease to exist with the company and its receivable
from insurance company is recorded if it is probable that claims against theft will be received from insurer. However, this
principle is not followed in case of theft of Tablet (Asset code: FA-0002345). Following discrepancies noted:
a) Disposal of asset theft during the month of November 2018 is recorded in the month of April 2019, delaying of 5
months. Resulting in overstatement of accumulated depreciation and understatement of Carrying value by Rs. 2,569
which ultimately shows gain on disposal at the time of receipt of claim, instead of loss of Rs. 1,272.
b) Such theft was recorded as ‘disposal’ instead of ‘write-off’.
Refer annex D for actual entry versus correct entry.
Recommendation:
Principle for correct accounting treatment should be followed for de-recognition of assets and claimed received against the
insurance of theft assets.
Management Response:
c) We remove asset from Asset Register once Insurance is received or approval is received to write it off. If we remove it
from FA register it will be difficult for follow up with department.
d) This Asset (Tablet PC) was stolen in month of Novemeber-18, however its insurance claim was received in the month of
Apr-2019. Our process is that when we receive insurance claim then we record asset disposal.
Responsibility for implementation: CFO.

Status as at Dec 2019: Not implemented. During the period, tablet (GSMP/FA-0002458) theft (as per FAR) still appearing
in FAR as at reporting date.
Follow-up management response: Finance will record the disposal of asset after we receive the complete documentation
from the relevant department. However we shall make our follow up procedures stronger. Point to be closed.

page 16
 Discrepancies in acquisition and disposal process of
High
immovable properties
Observation:
Discrepancies and lack of controls noted in acquisition and disposal process of immovable properties like:
a) Terms of references (TORs) for acquisition and disposal not defined or complied  
b) Cost benefit/need analysis not performed formally
c) Presentation of facts not accurately done.
d) Job completion report / Technical evaluation not performed.
e) Certain information not available.
Refer annex E for details of transactions and subsequent discrepancies.
Recommendation:
Controls over the acquisition and disposal process should be reassessed and shortcoming should be properly addressed.
 Perceived benefit against Cost incurred should be documented after proper analysis.
 All the facts should be presented accurately to the senior management and the board.
Management Response: Responses awaited.
Responsibility for implementation: CFO

Status as at Dec 2019: Not Implemented/pending

Under discussion

Follow-up management response: (Pending)

page 17
 Discrepancies in Fixed Assets Register Medium
Observation:
Following discrepancies exist in Fixed asset register (FAR) for region, location and condition of assets.
a) Incorrect date of acquisitions entered for ‘all fixed assets’ at the time of system migration from Oracle to Ms
Dynamics i.e at 30 June 2016 instead of its actual acquisition date. As a result, asset could not be traced to its actual
date of acquisition and other related facts.
b) Fields for locating/tracing an asset not effectively used/mentioned in FAR. For instances:
 In 81 assets, name of regions not mentioned against these fixed assets; Refer annex F for details.
 In all cases, name of region is mentioned in place of location of assets.
c) In 13 out of 20 cases sampled (assets disposal), condition of assets is ‘GOOD’ in assets register in contrary to ‘Not in
good condition’ in disposal approval; Refer annex C for details.
Recommendation:
Discrepancies in Fixed assets register should be resolved.
Management Response:
d) This relates to only those assets which were migrated from previous system. All new assets procured after the migration
are appearing with actual date of acquisition in FA Register. For all existing items it was recommended by the ERP
Consultants to keep the closing date of Financial year.
e) - 63 of those assets were already disposed off, 3 assets pertain to subsequent cost which will be written of after approval,
remaining 14 out of 80 assets have been communicated to concerned department (Admin/IT/MKTG/HS/Supply Chain)
for location identification.
- Location of all assets are available in Fixed Asset form in system.
c) Asset condition field incorporated and updated in Fixed asset register in Mar-19. At the time of migration from old
system to new system this field was shown as “Good condition”
Responsibility for implementation: CFO

page 18
 Discrepancies in Fixed Assets Register Medium
Status as at Dec 2019: Implemented/Not applicable & dropped
a) Not implementing
b) Implemented
c) Not applicable. No disposal occurred during the period concerned.

Follow-up management response:

a) Point to be closed
b) 14 items have been written off on 30-6-2020. Point to be closed
c) Condition updated according to asset nature- Point to be closed

page 19
 Inconsistent Fixed Assets procurement and disposal policy
Medium
in Finance and Procurement manual
Observation:
Certain clauses of Fixed Assets procurement and disposal policy of Procurement department is inconsistent with Fixed
Asset Management policy of Finance department. Below are the instances:
a) Inconsistent financial limits: Financial limit of Rs 25,000 for preparing Purchases Requisitions (PR) as required by
Procurement manual is inconsistent with financial limit of capitalizing fixed assets above Rs 15,000 as required by
Finance policy manual resulting in risk of un recorded CAPEX.
b) Conflicting disposal policies: Fixed assets disposal approval is based on Net Book Value (NBV) in Procurement
manual (chapter 5: ‘Stock Provision and Disposal Policy’), but same is based on cost of fixed assets in Finance policy
manual (chapter 7: ‘Fixed Assets’).

Recommendation:
c) Financial limit of Rs 25,000 for preparing Purchases Requisitions (PR) should be consistent with financial limit of
capitalizing fixed assets.
d) Disposal policy for fixed assets in Procurement manual and Finance department should be consistent with each other.

Management Response:
Finance:
e) In case of Capex items and above 15K it is necessary to raise the PR. This is already been followed.
f) Please advise to supply chain to amend the policy to be in line with the Finance manual.
Supply Chain:
b) We are amending our SOP for consistency with Finance manual.

Responsibility for implementation: CFO / Head of Supply Chain.

page 20
 Inconsistent Fixed Assets procurement and disposal policy
Medium
in Finance and Procurement manual
Status as at Dec 2019:
a) Not implementing
b) Implemented. SOP amended. However, Approval pending.

Follow-up management response:

Finance:
a) Already followed- Point to be closed
Supply Chain:
b) SOP has been amended and forwarded it for sign-off.

page 21
 Functionality of ERP not used Medium
Observation:
Functionality of fixed assets transfers from different location (regions) not used from the Ms Dynamics. Instead, transfer of
fixed assets are recorded and maintained only in hard copies by finance department.

Recommendation:
Fixed assets transfers should also be done through Ms Dynamics rather than only in hard copies.

Management Response:
We are looking into the possibility to implement this feature.

Responsibility for implementation: Head of IT by June 2020.

Status as at Dec 2019: Not implemented

Follow-up management response: IT has evaluated the possibility of the feature and this can be done by the IT department
first on the test server and later on the live server. We have requested the finance to do the benefit analysis of the feature
whether this will enhance the quality of data or will be too time consuming and not worthy of being implemented.

page 22
 Non compliance of SOP Low
Observation:
Certain non compliances with SOP existed as below:
a) Finance: As per chapter 7, Fixed Assets policy of Finance department
i. Clause 3.1.3: ‘Asset below 15,000 will not be recorded as fixed asset. It will be expense out in ODC’, however
around 118 items (lunch chairs, meeting chairs, staff chairs) amounting to Rs. 1.61 million which cost around Rs.
11,000 to 14,000 each are capitalized in fixed asset register.
b) Administration:
i. As per the Fixed Assets Management procedure of Administration department: ‘Fixed asset custodian (Manager
Admin in HO & AHO in regional offices) shall be responsible to identify the assets which are damaged or
depleted completing the life cycle or otherwise’, however no such intimation is made to finance department for
identification of damaged or depleted assets and these missed, damaged or obsolete assets were only identified
during the annual fixed assets physical counting activity conducted by Finance department;
c) Supply Chain:
i. As per insurance management policy of Procurement department ‘Company’s assets i.e only fixed assets and
inventory shall be covered with insurance’ however, certain vehicles which are provided by National TB control
program for usage purpose are also insured by company.

Recommendation:
SOP should be followed in all cases.

page 23
 Non compliance of SOP Low
Management Response:
a) Finance:
i. At the time of shifting from Bahria to Ocean furniture & Fixture were all taken as capital expenditure because all
items were in an invoice (below 15K & Above 15K) now we will remove them from fixed asset register.
b) Administration:
i. Fixed asset list was not available during the audit period concern, therefore damaged & missing assets could not
be identified / verified assets.
c) Supply Chain:
i. It is a donor requirement, and the cost is also being charged to donor, e-mails available on request.
Responsibility for implementation: CFO/Head of HR & Admin/Head of Supply Chain by June 2020.

Status as at Dec 2019:

a) Not implemented
b) Implemented
c) Dropped. As such cost of insurance is charged to respective donor.
Follow-up management response:
d) we have removed them from Fixed asset in June 2020- Point to be closed
b) Respective AHOs in region offices identify and intimate assets which are damaged during the year through email.
Emails are attached with this email. Request to redefine as complete.

page 24
 Transfer of title of vehicle sold and handed over, not
Medium
ensured in name of buyer
Observation: (2016-2017)
In 7 out of 11 cases sampled, title of the vehicle sold and handed over to the buyer was not transferred in his/her name on
timely basis. Refer annexure ‘A’ for detail.
Recommendation:
It should be ensured that the title of the vehicle sold and handed over to the buyer is transferred in his/her name on timely
basis.
Management Comments:
Admin : As discussed and agreed with Chief of Internal Audit change responsibility from Admin to Supply chain.
Supply Chain : Procurement will furnish an Affidavit with consultation from Lawyer, specifying that GSM has no liability
if the title of sold vehicle is not transferred by it’s Buyer. This Affidavit will be part of the document set related to transfer of
vehicles.
Responsibility of Implementation: Head of Supply Chain by 30th July 2017
Current status (2017-18): Not Applicable

Status as at Mar 2019: Not Implemented

In 3 cases (KE-752, AYQ-239 & CK-8677) of disposed vehicles, title of the vehicle sold and handed over to the buyer was
not transferred in his/her name till reporting date.
Follow-up Management Response:
Refer to supply chain.

page 25
 Transfer of title of vehicle sold and handed over, not
Medium
ensured in name of buyer
Status as at Dec 2019: Not Implemented
In 3 cases (KE-752, AYQ-239 & CK-8677) of disposed vehicles, title of the vehicle sold and handed over to the buyer was
not transferred in his/her name till reporting date.

Follow-up Management Response:

The burden of asset transfer lies entirely with the buyer, this fact is explicitly part of the undertaking (Legally vetted) we
are taking from Buyer on stamp paper. We consider our current process sufficient and in-line with market practices.

page 26
 Annex B4:
Write-offs not recorded for missing, damaged, theft and obsolete assets
Date of Carrying
Date of
S. No Asset Id Description Acquisitio Cost value as at 30 FIR date Responses from Supply Chain
theft *
n April 2019
Information not received from concern
1 GSMP/FA-0001677 Tablet PC 30-Aug-16 17,200 7,740 18-Sep-18 18-Sep-18
person/department
Information not received from concern
2 GSMP/FA-0001817 IPAD Tablet 26-Feb-18 18,300 10,675   05-Sep-18
person/department
3 GSMP/FA-0002356 Tablet PC 19-Sep-18 14,389 15-Dec-18 19-Dec-18 Refused from Insurance e-mail attached
18,500
Suzuki Bolan (not
4 GSMP/FA-0000620 30-Jun-08 451,000 1 11-Aug-14 Documents not provide by Admin
CS-4606 provided) 
Suzuki Bolan Refused from insurance, e-mail
5 GSMP/FA-0000869 30-Nov-10 512,000 - 29-Sep-14 29-Sep-14
CT-1649 attached
Information not received from concern
6 GSMP/FA-0000972 BikeKFO-4104 29-Dec-11 92,000 1 7-Aug-14 7-Aug-14
person/department
7 GSMP/FA-0001203 Laptop 13-Mar-13 95,352 - 22-Jul-18 22-Jul-18 In Process e-mail attached soon
 (not
8 GSMP/FA-0001296 Laptop 12-Jun-13 65,000 -   Documents will be shared soon
provided)
 (not
9 GSMP/FA-0001317 Laptop 29-Aug-13 52,650 1   Document will be share soon
provided)
Information not received from concern
10 GSMP/FA-0001318 Laptop 29-Aug-13 52,650 1 05-Jul-17 05-Jul-17
person/department
11 GSMP/FA-0001320 Laptop 29-Aug-13 52,650 1   18-Nov-16 Document will be share
Information not received from concern
12 GSMP/FA-0001332 Laptop 29-Aug-13 52,650 1 23-Oct-18 01-Jan-19
person/department
13 GSMP/FA-0001613 Laptop 30-Mar-16 46,500 1   03-Jul-17 In Process e-mail attached

*As mentioned is FIR

page 27
 Annexes
Annexs

page 28