2003 (4) TMI 70 - HC - Income Tax

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case prevalent in the assessment year 1991-92, the Tribunal was right in holding that the method of valuation of closing stock followed by the assessee was justified? - Once a recognised method of accountancy has been taken recourse to and the method has been adopted and the same has been computed on the basis of average, in our considered opinion, no question of law arises for calling for the statement of the case from the Tribunal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Valuation of closing stock method adopted by the assessee for the assessment year 1991-92.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the method of valuation of closing stock followed by the assessee during the assessment year 1991-92. The Revenue questioned the correctness of the method adopted by the assessee and sought a statement of the case from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The key question before the court was whether the method of valuation of closing stock adopted by the assessee was justified under the circumstances of the case.

The assessee had consumed a significant quantity of "tendu" leaves during the assessment year, and the cost prices of opening stock and purchases varied. The Assessing Officer rejected the method adopted by the assessee and relied on a Supreme Court decision to emphasize the importance of computing profits in a manner that safeguards the interest of the administration. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) disagreed with the Assessing Officer's approach, stating that the correct profit determination required a scientific method, ultimately deleting the additional amount imposed by the Assessing Officer.

Upon further appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal examined the material on record and concluded that due to the intermingling of opening stock and purchases, adopting the average rate of opening stock and purchases was the appropriate method to determine the cost of the closing stock. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in accepting the mean adopted by the assessee. Subsequently, an application was made to refer the question to the High Court under section 256(1) of the Act, but the Tribunal found no referable question of law.

During the court proceedings, the counsels presented contrasting arguments. One side argued in favor of the Assessing Officer's method, citing a Supreme Court decision, while the other side contended that the method had been consistently accepted by the Revenue in previous years and should not be deviated from. Reference was made to a Division Bench decision supporting the method adopted by the assessee.

After a thorough examination of the orders passed by the Assessing Officer, the appellate authority, and the Tribunal, the court concluded that the method adopted by the assessee, known as "last in and first out," was a recognized method of accountancy. The court emphasized the importance of giving acceptance to a reasonable view in such matters and held that no question of law arose for referring the case from the Tribunal. Consequently, the income-tax reference was rejected without any order as to costs.