2011 (10) TMI 456 - HC - Income Tax

How and in what manner the stock of goods maintained by the assessee be valued for determining its value for calculating his yearly business turn over so that his profitability can be taxed - assessee came out with an explanation that the entire stock maintained by him does not consists of new arrival but it consists of partly old and partly new stocks of goods - once the Tribunal accepted the factual explanation of assessee and accordingly deleted the additions in question made by A.O. by granting them partial relief in the matter of valuation of their stock in exercise of its appellate discretionary powers then it would not involve any substantial question of law - Held that it was considered that only 20% stock should be treated as being old and not more - Appeal is dismissed

Issues:
- Appeal filed by Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act against Tribunal's order
- Tribunal allowed cross objection of assessee and dismissed Revenue's appeal
- Determination of substantial question of law under Section 260A
- Valuation of stock for calculating business turnover
- Impugned finding by Revenue
- Examination of factual issues and binding nature of appellate court's findings
- Tribunal's exercise of discretionary powers in valuation of stock
- Discretion of taxing authorities in determining stock valuation

Analysis:
1. The High Court considered an appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act against an order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had allowed the cross objection of the assessee and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, reversing the Commissioner of Appeals' order on the issue raised in the appeal concerning the valuation of stock for calculating business turnover.

2. The primary issue before the Court was to determine whether the appeal involved any substantial question of law as required under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act. After hearing the counsel for the appellant and examining the case record, the Court was inclined to dismiss the appeal, stating that it did not involve any substantial question of law.

3. The case involved the valuation of stock by the assessee, who was engaged in the business of garments. The Tribunal had examined the issue and allowed relief to the assessee by considering only 20% of the stock as dead and obsolete, valuing it at 50% of its cost. The Tribunal's decision was based on the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the composition of the stock.

4. The Court emphasized that the issue at hand was a question of fact, not a question of law. It stated that once an appellate court accepts the factual explanation provided by the assessee, the finding based on that explanation is binding. The Court highlighted that it could not re-examine factual issues or draw new inferences in the appeal.

5. The Court further explained that the Tribunal's decision, based on a detailed examination of the issue, did not give rise to any substantial question of law for the High Court to consider. It noted that the Tribunal had exercised its discretionary powers in granting relief to the assessee regarding the valuation of stock, which did not warrant interference.

6. Regarding the discretion of taxing authorities in determining stock valuation, the Court held that such decisions are within the purview of the authorities. In this case, the Tribunal's decision to treat only 20% of the stock as old was considered a valid exercise of discretion, not necessitating any legal intervention.

7. Ultimately, the Court found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and dismissed it, stating that it did not involve any substantial question of law under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act. The Court also ruled that no costs were to be awarded in the matter.

← Previous Next →