9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of the assessee's method of valuation of work-in-progress. 2. Non-acceptance of the change in the method of valuation of work-in-progress from 'cost' to 'cost or realisable value, whichever is less' for taxation purposes. Detailed Analysis: 1. Rejection of the assessee's method of valuation of work-in-progress: The assessee, a company whose entire share capital was acquired by the Government of India effective April 19, 1960, had extended its business activities from ship repairing to manufacturing rollers, cranes, river craft, and sea-going vessels. The company followed the mercantile system of accounting and initially valued its work-in-progress at "cost". From the accounting year ending September 30, 1957, it changed its method to "cost or realisable value, whichever is less". The Income Tax Officer (ITO) did not accept this changed method, adding back the amounts written off in the accounts, arguing that the change amounted to a change in the method of accounting, which was not permissible. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) upheld these additions. The Tribunal, for the assessment year 1957-58, decided against the assessee, holding that only losses on completed contracts were allowed and the assessee could not deviate from the method of accounting it had regularly followed. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that anticipated losses on incomplete contracts should not be allowed as realisable work-in-progress when profits or losses on incomplete work were not assessed otherwise. In subsequent years, the assessee's contention was that its method of valuing closing work-in-progress at "cost or realisable value, whichever is less" accorded with well-recognised principles of accountancy. The Tribunal, however, upheld the ITO's additions, finding no reason to deviate from its earlier decision. 2. Non-acceptance of the change in the method of valuation of work-in-progress from 'cost' to 'cost or realisable value, whichever is less' for taxation purposes: The assessee argued that the change in the method of valuation was made bona fide and that foreseeable losses with regard to incomplete contracts are always provided for in the accounts, which is a recognised principle of accountancy. The Tribunal, however, noted that while there is no res judicata in income-tax proceedings, the past should not be entirely ignored. The Tribunal found that the method of valuing work-in-progress adopted by the assessee was not in consonance with recognised principles of accountancy and upheld the additions made by the ITO. The Tribunal's decision was challenged for the assessment years 1963-64 to 1966-67, with the assessee arguing that its method of valuation was consistent with standard accounting practices and that the valuation on the basis of "cost or realisable value, whichever is less" should be accepted. However, the Tribunal found no reason to take a different view from its earlier decision and upheld the ITO's additions. The High Court, in its judgment, referred to various authoritative texts on accountancy, which discussed the valuation of long-term contracts. The court noted that the method of valuation of long-term contracts recognised in accountancy involves spreading the profits over the period of the contracts and providing for foreseeable losses. The court found that the method followed by the assessee required detailed examination of facts by the tax authorities or the Tribunal and that the Tribunal's findings in this regard had to be accepted. The court observed that consistently over a long period, the tax authorities had made assessments based on profits earned on or losses suffered in completed contracts only, and the position with regard to incomplete contracts was never taken into account. The court concluded that the Tribunal had not found any overriding reason for effecting a change of method from the one consistently followed in the past and that the Tribunal's view was not erroneous. Conclusion: The High Court answered both questions in the affirmative, concluding that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the assessee's method of valuation of work-in-progress and in not accepting the change in the method of valuation for taxation purposes. The court made no order as to costs.
|
