9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (7) TMI 590 - HC - Income TaxDifference in method of accounting adopted - EMI method to account the finance charges for the income tax purposes and SOD Method to arrive at balance sheet and profit and loss statements - hire purchase agreement - Held that - Method employed for arriving the monthly installment is an EMI method and the right of the assessee to receive the hire purchase charges on various due dates are as per the schedule mentioned in the agreement - considering the character of the transaction as the title to the property will pass on to the hirer, when all the installments are paid and when the hire purchaser exercises his option to purchase was pure and simple and that the transaction had not in any manner undergone any change ever since the assessee started its business in this field the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the AO had committed a serious error in ignoring the EMI method, to adopt SOD method - once the Revenue had accepted the character of the transaction as hire purchase transaction and when the Revenue had not disputed the fact that on all the earlier years there are no materials available as on record to show that following such method had really resulted in suppression of income - in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of following the Equated Monthly Instalment (EMI) method for accounting finance charges for income tax purposes. 2. Justification of following the Sum of Digits (SOD) method for accounting finance charges in balance sheet and profit and loss statements. 3. Legitimacy of using different accounting methods for income tax purposes and financial reporting. 4. Justification of changing the method of accounting. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Justification of Following the EMI Method for Income Tax Purposes: The Tribunal held that the assessee was justified in using the EMI method for income tax purposes. The assessee argued that the nature of the hire purchase agreement necessitated the EMI method, as the collection of amounts was due by equated monthly instalments. The Tribunal supported this, noting that the EMI method accurately reflected the true income under Section 5 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal further emphasized that the Assessing Officer should adhere to the EMI method once the correct income is deduced from the books of accounts. This position was reinforced by the Tribunal's observation that the Revenue did not challenge the finding that the transactions were hire purchase agreements. 2. Justification of Following the SOD Method for Financial Reporting: The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee used the SOD method for financial reporting in the balance sheet and profit and loss statements. This method was consistently followed by the assessee for recognizing income from finance charges. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer argued that the assessee should not adopt different methods for income tax purposes and financial reporting. However, the Tribunal concluded that the nature of the transaction as a hire purchase agreement justified the EMI method for income tax purposes, while the SOD method was appropriate for financial reporting. 3. Legitimacy of Using Different Accounting Methods: The Tribunal addressed the issue of using different accounting methods for income tax purposes and financial reporting. It was noted that the assessee had consistently used the EMI method for income tax purposes and the SOD method for financial reporting. The Tribunal referred to previous orders and circulars from the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which supported the assessee's approach. The Tribunal concluded that the EMI method was appropriate for income tax purposes, given the nature of the hire purchase agreements, and there was no evidence that this approach resulted in the suppression of income. 4. Justification of Changing the Method of Accounting: The Tribunal considered whether the assessee was justified in changing the method of accounting. The Tribunal found that the assessee had consistently used the EMI method for income tax purposes since the beginning of its business. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had accepted the EMI method in previous assessment years, which was later challenged by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal ultimately concluded that the EMI method was consistent with the terms of the hire purchase agreements and accurately reflected the true income of the assessee. Conclusion: The Tribunal's decision was based on the nature of the hire purchase agreements and the consistent use of the EMI method for income tax purposes. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals, affirming the assessee's approach to using different accounting methods for income tax purposes and financial reporting. The Tribunal emphasized that the EMI method accurately reflected the true income of the assessee and was consistent with the terms of the hire purchase agreements. The Tribunal also referred to relevant circulars and previous orders to support its decision. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
|
