Skip to website
Suvendu QezronthiChief Financial Officer

Suvendu Qezronthi · Chief Financial Officer · India

A costing question became an enterprise responsibility

Chief Financial Officer

Vezqalni Animation Works

Apr 2021 — Present

Sector
Commissioned animation and post-production services
Ownership
Founders 49%, domestic growth fund 36%, employee vehicle 15%; no personal equity or vehicle allocation
Company scale
FY2025–26 revenue ₹134 crore:₹92 crore animation and ₹42 crore finishing
Employees
310 enterprise employees; twenty-eight in finance
Geography
Bhubaneswar finance and production headquarters
Reporting to
Chief Executive Nandita Zevqorli
Team
Twenty-eight colleagues through four finance heads
Financial scope
₹4.8 crore annual function expense and separate ₹1.6 crore systems programme

Mandate

Make production obligations visible in financial decisions before another commitment is approved

Outcomes

  • Separated advance-funded delivery outflows from a discretionary spending proposal
  • Withdrew a sourcing saving claim that included retained costs
  • Connected financial forecasts with accountable production estimates

Decisions in context

Four finance heads coordinate twenty-eight colleagues. Nandita receives my executive reports, and Iqbal’s production forecasts inform the commitments we examine. The ₹4.8 crore expense account and ₹1.6 crore systems programme have distinct scopes. Customer advances required us to reconsider what a bank balance could responsibly support; the outsourcing comparison required a different distinction between allocated and avoidable costs. Neither review authorised finance to take creative or contractual decisions away from their owners. I present to directors as an executive invitee and hold no statutory seat. The responsibility is to help management understand the obligation behind a financial proposition before the enterprise acts on it. A first outside appointment would need governance preparation and an assessment of interests and capacity. My finance title alone cannot supply the collective judgement or eligibility required for that role.

Reason for the move

Current finance leadership; considering a suitably prepared outside-board contribution

Concurrent appointment

Finance employment without a statutory board appointment

Financial Controller

Vezqalni Animation Works

Apr 2016 — Mar 2021

Sector
Financial control for commissioned animation and finishing
Ownership
Founder-led private enterprise with a growth-capital minority
Company scale
Company revenue ₹87 crore in the appointment’s closing year
Employees
231 company employees at period end
Geography
Bhubaneswar financial-control office
Reporting to
Chief Financial Officer
Team
Twenty-three finance colleagues
Financial scope
₹3.7 crore annual function expense; project corrections separately approved

Mandate

Keep production estimates and recorded spending in one reviewable management account

Outcomes

  • Corrected the ₹1.8 crore whole-project estimate I had accepted
  • Separated ₹1.1 crore incurred from ₹1.2 crore forecast remaining cost
  • Rebuilt estimation review without claiming a realised margin improvement

Decisions in context

Twenty-three colleagues worked within ₹3.7 crore annual function expense. In 2019 I accepted a ₹60 lakh project contribution before central costs without adequately testing the remaining-work estimate. Iqbal showed that ₹1.2 crore remained after ₹1.1 crore had already been incurred. The corrected ₹2.3 crore cost against a ₹2.4 crore fee left ₹10 lakh before central costs. A separate ₹17 lakh, eight-week review changed how estimates were examined. I had to own the weak approval rather than present the correction as a problem discovered in somebody else’s forecast. The work strengthened the connection between production responsibility and finance’s account of expected outcomes. Becoming CFO later widened that obligation across cash planning and sourcing decisions, where an apparently accurate total could again support a conclusion its underlying commitments did not justify.

Reason for the move

Promoted to CFO with enterprise finance responsibility

Concurrent appointment

Finance employment without a statutory board appointment

Production Finance Manager

Vezqalni Animation Works

Apr 2009 — Mar 2016

Sector
Production finance for commissioned creative services
Ownership
Privately held domestic animation enterprise
Company scale
₹43 crore company revenue at appointment end
Employees
126 company employees at period end
Geography
Bhubaneswar production-finance team
Reporting to
Financial Controller
Team
Eighteen production-finance colleagues
Financial scope
₹2.6 crore annual function expense; production approvals outside finance delegation

Mandate

Connect the agreed production brief with a financial estimate of the remaining work

Outcomes

  • Made production-stage assumptions visible in management estimates
  • Separated incurred spending from forecasts of unfinished work
  • Established a continuing review relationship with production owners

Decisions in context

I joined with eighteen colleagues and ₹2.6 crore annual function expense. A commissioned animation brief brought together creative interpretation, client decisions and production effort. Finance needed to understand those relationships without deciding the creative work itself. I asked production owners to describe the stages still required rather than allow a completed stage to imply that the entire commission was nearly finished. The work made forecast ownership more concrete for me. It also explains why the later estimate failure was my mistake: I already understood the distinction but did not preserve it when the project paper offered an attractive margin. The subsequent correction had to change the review conversation, not merely add a cautionary phrase. Controllership expanded the responsibility from individual production accounts to the management process through which the company relied on them.

Reason for the move

Promoted into financial controllership

Concurrent appointment

Finance employment without a statutory board appointment

Project Costing Manager

Drezqavli Project Accounts

Apr 2002 — Mar 2009

Sector
Project-costing support for privately owned service enterprises
Ownership
Domestic project-accounting partnership
Company scale
Annual enterprise service income ₹23 crore at departure
Employees
74 company employees at departure
Geography
Bhubaneswar costing practice
Reporting to
Partner responsible for project accounts
Team
Twelve costing colleagues
Financial scope
₹1.5 crore annual function expense; no client spending authority

Mandate

Reconcile the work described by commercial and production colleagues before comparing costs

Outcomes

  • Connected commercial scopes with delivery-cost assumptions
  • Distinguished client approvals from the practice’s analytical support
  • Made unresolved forecasts visible before a client decision

Decisions in context

Twelve colleagues worked within ₹1.5 crore annual function expense. We prepared costing support for clients whose commercial and production teams often described the same project differently. I learned to ask which account the proposed financial comparison actually used. The practice did not acquire the client’s approval authority by preparing the analysis, nor did I claim a professional qualification beyond my commerce degree. The useful contribution was making differences visible before a client relied on a total. Joining Vezqalni gave me a continuing responsibility for those estimates within one enterprise, rather than handing an analytical assignment back at completion. It also made the consequence of a weak assumption harder to separate from my own role. The later CFO cases grew from that responsibility to explain what changed when a project, a receipt or a sourcing arrangement was interpreted differently.

Reason for the move

Joined an animation enterprise for continuing production-finance ownership

Concurrent appointment

Finance employment without a statutory board appointment

Project-Accounts Assistant

Drezqavli Project Accounts

Jun 1994 — Mar 2002

Sector
Supervised project-account preparation and record support
Ownership
Regional privately owned accounting-services partnership
Company scale
₹6.4 crore annual enterprise service income at period end
Employees
29 company employees at period end
Geography
Bhubaneswar project-accounts office
Reporting to
Supervising Accounts Manager
Team
Assistant in a nine-person accounts group
Financial scope
Assigned record preparation without client approval or professional signing authority

Mandate

Separate the recorded transaction from the forecast a manager wants to make from it

Outcomes

  • Prepared project records under supervision
  • Escalated differences between work descriptions and financial records
  • Learned to distinguish completed documentation from a complete decision account

Decisions in context

I joined in June 1994 after completing commerce studies in May. Nine people formed the accounts group. I prepared records and comparisons under supervision without signing professional opinions or deciding a client’s accounting treatment. The discipline was to keep a documented transaction separate from the conclusion somebody hoped to draw about future work. A complete record could still leave a forecast unsupported. I learned to bring that gap to a manager rather than fill it with a convenient assumption. Costing management later expanded the same question across whole projects, and production finance made it a continuing enterprise responsibility. That early lesson returned in the margin correction years later: my historical-spend account was orderly, but the estimate beside it needed a much more serious challenge before it could support the company’s next decision.

Reason for the move

Promoted to manage project-costing assignments

Concurrent appointment

Finance employment without a statutory board appointment

What I am looking for next

I would consider a finance mandate where production owners can challenge the financial account before a proposal becomes difficult to revise. The enterprise should want remaining work, advance-funded obligations and retained costs explained alongside the attractive headline number. I would ask how forecasts change after an operating challenge and whether directors can see the consequence without receiving an unmanageable project ledger. A first outside-board contribution requires further governance preparation and an appointment-specific review. Twenty-three proposed annual days must cover learning, preparation, meetings and exceptional demands alongside my CFO duties, with employer consent before acceptance. I would seek a chair who values scrutiny of assumptions without expecting a director to take over project costing. The contribution should help management show what an enterprise still owes after a receipt arrives or an activity moves, so a board can decide deliberately which commitment to fund and which apparently favourable comparison needs a different explanation.