under any condition. Therefore, internal control is designed essentially for the 60% group. Since internal control is a process, therefore, under the proper conditions, it must constantly make progress and it rarely occurs that a control problem has just one solution. The accountants must use their judgment and experience in designing and implementing internal control. This process must be reviewed every now and then, so as its continuous effect is ensured.
• The internal control necessarily involves the persons in the organization: In the, COSO and Lander's definition, the internal control is the responsibility of the Board of Directors and the management. In the definition given by the New York Public Department, the more extensive expression "The individuals who are colleagues in an organization" is used. Therefore, the internal control needs discussion and evaluation during design, implementation and evaluation, since it has much behavioral effect on the organizational personnel.
• The purpose of designing internal control is a realistic assurance of achieving the goals. In the dictionary, com website, the term "Reasonable" is defined as "logically or according to the reason and common sense, in the limits of common sense, without excess and extreme, For that reason, internal control could not and ought not to be designed for 100% certainty of anything. Referring to the debates on the theoretical framework of accounting, one could say that internal control is under the cost- benefit constraint. To be beneficial, its benefit must be more than its cost.
Internal control provides a logical assurance in some common grounds such as operations, financial reporting and human behavior and it is not confined to accounting controls but include an extensive range of objectives of the board of directors and the management