The recorded spend was clearer than the remaining work

The project looked profitable in the management paper I had accepted. A ₹2.4 crore fee stood beside ₹1.8 crore expected production cost, leaving ₹60 lakh before central costs. In 2019 I was Financial Controller at Vezqalni Animation Works. I had checked the spending already incurred more carefully than the estimate of what the team still had to do. When Iqbal Qevralni challenged the remaining-work account, the reassuring subtotal no longer described the production commitment.

My working life began in June 1994 after commerce studies at Teqvazli Commerce College. I joined Drezqavli Project Accounts as an assistant in a nine-person group. I prepared project records under supervision and did not sign professional opinions or decide a client’s accounting treatment. The work taught me to separate a recorded transaction from a forecast about what would follow it. A file could be complete as a record and still be incomplete as a basis for deciding whether more work should proceed.

In April 2002 I became a Project Costing Manager, leading twelve colleagues within ₹1.5 crore annual function expense. We helped clients connect their work descriptions with the costs required to deliver them. I learned that the same activity could be described differently by a commercial team, a production owner and the person compiling the management account. The useful response was to reconcile those accounts, rather than assume that finance’s label was automatically the most precise description of the work.

I joined Vezqalni in April 2009 as Production Finance Manager, with eighteen colleagues and ₹2.6 crore annual function expense. Commissioned animation made the remaining-work question particularly tangible. A completed stage did not establish the effort still needed to satisfy the agreed brief. Creative and contractual owners retained their decisions, while finance needed an estimate it could explain to management. The appointment put me alongside production colleagues whose challenge became essential to later financial reviews.

Promotion to Financial Controller followed in April 2016. Twenty-three colleagues worked within ₹3.7 crore annual function expense. The 2019 project had ₹1.1 crore already incurred and a revised ₹1.2 crore needed to finish, giving ₹2.3 crore expected cost. The difference from the earlier ₹1.8 crore estimate was ₹50 lakh. We used a separate ₹17 lakh, eight-week review to rebuild the project-estimation process. That review cost belonged in its own account; it was not a saving or part of the selected project’s ₹10 lakh subtotal. I corrected the paper instead of defending its familiar margin.

I became CFO in April 2021. In 2023, a proposed ₹7 crore discretionary programme was being discussed against an ₹18 crore cash balance. Twelve crore represented customer advances, with ₹9 crore forecast delivery outflow. A ₹21 lakh review over six weeks separated that commitment before further ordinary obligations were assessed. We deferred ₹3 crore of the proposal and retained ₹4 crore for separate approval. The cash analysis did not decide revenue recognition, establish free cash or create permission to spend the residual automatically.

In 2025 an external finishing quote of ₹1.6 crore was compared with ₹1.4 crore internal cost. The internal figure contained ₹1 crore of costs that would remain and ₹40 lakh that could be avoided. Outsourcing therefore added ₹1.2 crore before other transition effects on the stated comparison. I asked the team to withdraw the saving claim and examine the capacity and capability reasons separately. A ₹26 lakh, ten-week review preserved that distinction without declaring that external specialists could never be the right choice.

Today I report to Nandita Zevqorli and lead twenty-eight finance colleagues. Iqbal’s production account remains a necessary challenge to our estimates. My work does not replace professional accounting judgement, and presenting to directors does not make me a statutory director. For a first outside seat, I still need governance preparation and an appointment-specific review. I want to contribute where the enterprise can discuss an inconvenient remaining obligation before an appealing number turns into an operating commitment nobody has properly funded. That includes being clear about my own earlier approval and the cost of correcting it. I also want a production colleague to recognise their actual commitment in the financial paper, including the uncertainty that remains after finance has completed its calculations.

Open to Board appointments · Executive opportunities

Languages / Odia · English · Hindi