<![CDATA[This study aims to examine the implementation of substantive testing and external confirmation in accounts receivable audits at Public Accounting Firms (KAP) in Surabaya, as well as to analyze how auditors exercise professional judgment when encountering obstacles during audit procedures. Accounts receivable carry a high inherent risk of material misstatement, thereby necessitating rigorous procedures to ensure the existence assertion and the sufficiency of audit evidence. Data collection was conducted through three methods: in-depth interviews with informants, direct field observations, and the collection of documents relevant to the research topic. The results indicate that the series of substantive tests—comprising analytical procedures, external confirmation, cut-off tests, subsequent receipts testing, and the evaluation of allowance for credit losses—effectively identified differences in client balances. Furthermore, the study finds that low third-party response rates to external confirmations constitute a major obstacle in obtaining audit evidence, prompting auditors to perform alternative procedures based on professional judgment while considering risk levels and materiality. The study concludes that the KAPs have conducted accounts receivable audits in compliance with the Standards on Auditing (SA). Additionally, the findings demonstrate that the effectiveness of implementing substantive procedures is determined not only by compliance with the Standards on Auditing, but also by the auditors' capability to employ professional judgment in determining alternative procedures, thereby ensuring that the sufficiency and appropriateness of audit evidence are maintained.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
