2012 (6) TMI 179 - HC - Income Tax

Valuation of stock valuation of stock at less than average price - 50% stock of marble slabs and marble tiles was considered to be fresh and balance 50% was considered to be of inferior quality - Stock that was considered to be of inferior quality was valued at 25% rate of value applied for fresh stock. - This, according to assessing officer, was without any basis AO rejected books of accounts and valued the stock at average rate CIT reduced addition - revenue preferred appeal before ITAT and assessee filed cross-objections Held that - FIFO method of valuation can be followed only when items purchased/manufactured are identical in nature while in the case of assessee there is sizable difference in the valuation for block to block, slab to slab and tiles to tiles. - valuation method if adopted, it has to be followed consistently and entire stock could not be sold at same price and obviously at the time of sale when the buyer picks up the best available stock then the assessee is entitled to value part of the stock at reduced price particularly when it has also proved that the same was sold in immediate succeeding period at a lesser rate fixed from best of the stock. No question of law arise, appeal dismissed

Issues: Valuation of closing stock - Application of FIFO method - Justification for reducing additions - Consistency in valuation method - Entitlement to value part of stock at reduced price

Valuation of Closing Stock:
The case involved an appeal by the revenue against the ITAT's order upholding the CIT (Appeals) decision regarding the valuation of the closing stock of a company formed by the conversion of a previous concern. The assessing officer had rejected the valuation made by the company and added a significant amount to the income. The CIT (Appeals) reduced the addition, which was further challenged by the revenue in the ITAT.

Application of FIFO Method:
The revenue contended that there was no basis for considering 50% of the stock as inferior quality and valuing it at a reduced rate. The counsel argued that the assessing officer rightly rejected the books of account under Section 145(3) and that the valuation should have been in accordance with the method regularly maintained by the assessee. The counsel raised the question of whether the ITAT was justified in confirming the CIT (Appeals) decision in reducing the addition without a valid basis.

Justification for Reducing Additions - Consistency in Valuation Method:
Upon review, the High Court found that the CIT (Appeals) had provided valid reasons for reducing the additions. The court noted that the FIFO method could only be applied when items are identical in nature, which was not the case here due to variations in valuation. It was emphasized that the valuation method, as disclosed in the accounts, should be consistently followed, especially in the first year of the company. The court agreed with the CIT (Appeals) that different parts of the stock could be valued differently based on actual sales data, and upheld the findings of fact made by the lower authorities.

Entitlement to Value Part of Stock at Reduced Price:
The High Court concluded that the findings were based on an evaluation of the material on record and did not raise any substantial question of law. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as lacking merit.

In summary, the judgment addressed the issues of valuation of closing stock, the application of the FIFO method, the justification for reducing additions, consistency in valuation methods, and the entitlement to value parts of stock at reduced prices. The court upheld the CIT (Appeals) decision, emphasizing the importance of following a consistent valuation method and considering actual sales data in determining the value of different parts of the stock.

← Previous Next →