Urja Global review flags missing evidence for ₹46.35 crore CWIP; recoverability “not determinable”
Urja Global Limited’s December-quarter limited review contains a blunt auditor warning that goes beyond routine disclosure language: ₹46.35 crore of capital work-in-progress (CWIP) is shown on the balance sheet, but the auditor records that no documentary evidence was made available to support it — and that the recoverability and profit impact are “not determinable.”
This isn’t just about one line item. It raises a bigger question about whether the company’s balance sheet can be substantiated with basic records.
What the auditor actually recorded The review note states: “No documentary evidence made available for Investment in Mines Projects… classified under ‘Property Plant and Equipment’ as capital work in progress, amounting to ₹46,35,28,484 as on 31.12.2025.”
CWIP is typically supported by project contracts, EPC invoices, stage completion certificates, and capitalisation schedules. The issue here is that those supporting documents were not provided.
Loans and advances: the concern widens The auditor adds: “No documentary evidence available with respect to Loans and Advances granted by the Company as on date.”
That expands the red flag from CWIP into broader balance-sheet substantiation — including whether advances and receivables can be evidenced and recovered.
Management’s explanation: GST raid in July 2021 Management’s explanation, as recorded by the auditor, is striking: “As informed to us, the GST department raided the Company’s premises on 20-07-2021 and took all records.”
The company says key documents (project agreements, terms, signed balance confirmations for loans/advances) are not available and “shall be sought from parties,” implying confirmations have not yet been rebuilt.
The sharpest phrase: “not determinable” The auditor concludes: “In the absence of necessary documents, recoverability of loans and advances, impact on the carrying value of investments and consequential impact on profit is not determinable.”
That is effectively an inability to assess whether assets are overstated, whether write-downs are required, or whether profits could be materially misstated.
Rare escalation: Companies Act compliance also not commentable The review further states: “We are also unable to comment upon the compliance of the applicable provisions of the Companies Act 2013.”
That’s a notable escalation — moving from accounting uncertainty into statutory compliance uncertainty.
Not isolated: broader control stress in the same review The CWIP gap appears alongside multiple other flags, including GST ITC issues, loans/advances to individuals/entities, lack of interest accrual on promoter loans, missing invoice/customer details for receivables, and large receivables ageing beyond 180 days. The pattern suggests the CWIP issue sits within wider documentation and ledger-discipline weakness.
Why the timeline matters A GST raid cited as occurring in July 2021 does not explain why, as of December 2025, documentation reconstruction and recoverability assessment remain unresolved. The filing provides no project-level clarity (what “mines projects” are, where, stage, timelines), keeping the evidentiary question open.
👉 For more such insights everyday, register at : 🌐https://shorturl.at/xJz9M
