C2C Advanced Systems : From IPO Stardom to Scandal

In India's rapidly evolving technology sector, C2C Advanced Systems once stood out as an innovative player, leveraging the buzz around system solutions and digital transformation for various industries. Its story, however, took a dramatic turn—from being a promising SME riding the IPO wave to becoming the subject of one of the biggest financial controversies in the SME segment in 2025. The C2C Advanced Systems scam not only exposed the cracks in corporate governance but also became a wake-up call for investors, regulators, and the broader market about the need for deeper scrutiny in the burgeoning SME IPO space.

The IPO Euphoria and Rapid Rise

C2C Advanced Systems, a defense and aerospace solutions provider, recently made headlines with its highly anticipated IPO. The public issue witnessed an overwhelming demand, being oversubscribed by 125 times, with investors bidding for 36.56 crore shares against an availability of just 29.15 lakh shares. The shares debuted on the NSE SME platform at ₹429.40, marking a 90% premium over the issue price of ₹226. 

However, the euphoria was short-lived. Soon after the listing, discrepancies in the company's financial disclosures came to light, raising serious concerns among investors and regulators alike.

Regulatory Scrutiny and Audit Findings

Just days before its scheduled listing on the NSE SME platform, the process was dramatically halted due to regulatory intervention by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and the National Stock Exchange (NSE). This decisive action came in response to an investor complaint that flagged suspected financial irregularities, prompting SEBI to instruct the company to immediately appoint independent auditors to conduct a granular review of its financial accounts before proceeding further. 

​

Alongside the audit requirement, both anchor and retail investors were for the first time offered the option to withdraw their IPO bids, reflecting the gravity of concerns over transparency and financial veracity. The company had no choice but to postpone the listing, pending submission and review of the independent auditor’s findings. 

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) intervened, mandating C2C Advanced Systems to appoint an independent auditor to review its financial statements. This move was prompted by investor complaints highlighting potential misrepresentations in the company's Red Herring Prospectus (RHP). 

Cracks in the Story: Red Flags in the Numbers

Most of the trouble can be traced back to C2C’s draft red herring prospectus (DRHP), which greatly shaped investor perception ahead of the IPO. On closer inspection, the auditor’s independent inquiry revealed glaring inconsistencies and a pattern of data manipulation.

The most shocking finding was the source and quality of C2C’s reported sales. Out of a total Rs 94.48 crore in sales, 74%—close to Rs 70 crore—came from just four customers that were intimately connected to the company itself. Even more worrying, 78% of these reported sales remained uncollected as of September 30, 2024, raising eyebrows about whether these sales were ever real cash inflows or merely accounting entries to inflate the company’s financial health for investors.

Questionable Customers and Fictitious Transactions

Customer verification unveiled further red flags. Two major customers, Synergy Log-in Systems and Synergy Information Technologies, accounted for a significant chunk of reported revenue but were not disclosed as related parties, breaking mandatory transparency norms. Their addresses could not be verified, email and website domains were shared, and in one case, the postal code simply didn’t exist. C2C’s US-based client, C2Ci Inc., was even more suspicious, listing three different addresses, not one of which stood up to verification checks.

This pattern left auditors questioning whether these entities actually existed or were merely fronts set up to pad C2C’s revenue figures. If most of the revenue is locked up with related or possibly fictitious customers and never gets collected, it strongly suggests manipulation for show—providing a false sense of business growth to the market.

Problems with the Order Book

The company’s order book, a key measure that signals future business and sustainability, was no less confusing. The DRHP stated two different order book values in different sections—Rs 65.27 crore and Rs 50.56 crore. Auditors discovered that Rs 75.69 crore worth of orders “on the books” from a customer named OSI Maritime had no valid supporting contracts, and another Rs 16.85 crore in orders came from companies that were also related parties. This meant that much of the projected business might never materialize, calling into question not only the numbers shown to investors but also the company’s pipeline narrative.

Supplier Concentration and Vendor Verification Issues

If the customer side was murky, the vendor side was full of holes. The investigation revealed that 85% of C2C’s total purchases were routed through just four vendors. Three of these were small sole proprietorships with no public profile or credible business presence—one vendor showed a total of zero revenue for five straight years, and another could not be found during physical verification. Such unusual concentration, especially with unverifiable vendors, raises the risk of round-tripping or fictitious purchases made to support inflated revenue and asset numbers.

Financial Discrepancies and Book Manipulation

Reviewing C2C’s actual books against what was declared in the DRHP revealed a long list of mismatches. For instance, the loan payable to C2C Innovations Pvt Ltd was disclosed as only Rs 13.29 lakh in the DRHP, but the true amount was about Rs 13 crore in the company’s actual records. Payments to KTI Intelligent Systems were similarly underreported—disclosed as Rs 1.19 crore but in reality Rs 3.69 crore.

The DRHP also inaccurately claimed a repayment of Rs 2.85 crore to PVR Multimedia, while in fact company records showed an inflow of the same amount from PVR Multimedia. Another case involved reporting advances of Rs 11.76 lakh from Realtime Tech solutions that never occurred, according to actual financial ledgers. These are not minor errors; they signal a pattern of chronic misreporting and potential intent to deceive.

Fund Allocation and Consultancy Fees

How the company spent the money it raised is a crucial lens into any alleged scam. Out of Rs 58.85 crore raised through private placements, a massive Rs 6.25 crore was paid out as consultancy fees—about 20% of all funds raised. Audit findings revealed that shares were issued to individuals connected to these consultancy fee recipients, opening the door to possible related-party fund diversion or circular financing.

Regulatory Breaches in Export Practices

C2C’s problems didn’t end with accounting and disclosures. The audit flagged violations in export reporting. The company failed to submit mandatory Softex forms for software exports—an explicit breach of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA). The absence of these forms raises doubts about whether real exports even occurred or if the revenue was generated through improper means.

Risky Deals with Related Parties

A particularly concerning relationship was with Realtime Tech solutions Pvt Ltd (RTTS). Despite RTTS being a known financial defaulter, C2C made payments of Rs 3.07 crore on its behalf, including Rs 1.61 crore to cover salary payments. The company then extended Rs 5.61 crore in further funding even after RTTS had defaulted on previous loans. Extending funds to known defaulters, especially without adequate controls, puts shareholder money at greater risk and undermines responsible financial stewardship.

Loans Without Agreements and Preferential Treatment

Scrutiny of the loan portfolio turned up routine compliance and governance lapses. C2C had extended Rs 6.24 crore in loans to related parties without any formal loan agreements in place. Most of these loans were interest-free, indicating preferential treatment that is not in line with arm’s length transaction principles expected in publicly listed companies.

Window Dressing in Financial Statements

Sudden shifts in business metrics post-March 2024 suggested possible window dressing of the financials. Purchases as a share of sales shot up from 10% to 47%—an abnormal jump for any business if not accompanied by legitimate expansion or new contracts. Meanwhile, the company reportedly recorded Rs 9.66 crore as inventory without corresponding product deliveries, raising suspicions of financial engineering to boost asset value at year-end.

Governance Gaps and Senior Management Conflicts

Corporate governance concerns extended right into the top ranks of the company. The CFO of C2C managed directorships in over seven other companies, risking divided attention and conflicts of interest in a business where clean, singular oversight is critical. The company displayed a habit of repeated statutory defaults on government payments such as GST and TDS. It also issued a Rs 6.7 crore loan to a related party without sufficient documentation, adding to evidence of weak internal controls.

Revenue recognition practices were suspect too: while C2C reported recognizing revenue only after a second round of independent client testing, actual payment depended on completion of a third round led by clients—leaving large gaps between when revenue was reported and when money was actually realized.

Market Fallout and Investor Exit

As these findings hit the public domain, the NSE demanded the company publish the audit observations and its responses. But C2C failed to meet disclosure deadlines, and the findings were ultimately published by the exchange itself in February 2025—a move signaling how grave regulators considered the matter. By then, the euphoria was gone: C2C shares hit the 5% lower circuit, falling to Rs 697.20 from recent highs, and the company’s market capitalization dropped to around Rs 1,160 crore. Even after over 3.7 lakh IPO applications worth Rs 27 crore were withdrawn, the company went ahead with the listing, with promoters holding 40.7% shares and the public holding about 45.4%.

Lessons for Investors and the SME IPO Market

The C2C Advanced Systems episode is a vivid illustration of how compelling narratives can fall apart when substance doesn’t match. The lure of technological innovation, major defense contracts, and soaring IPO premiums should never blind investors to red flags hiding in plain sight—especially when they take the shape of concentrated customer and vendor relationships, uncollected sales, questionable disclosures, and regulatory breaches.

What happened at C2C is a call for sharper scrutiny in SME IPOs, more skeptical investor due diligence, and above all, insistence on clean, transparent financials. 

Conclusion

The rise and subsequent scrutiny of C2C Advanced Systems serve as a stark reminder of the potential pitfalls in the investment landscape. While the allure of quick gains can be tempting, it is imperative for investors to prioritize due diligence and for regulators to enforce stringent compliance standards to safeguard market integrity.