2003 (1) TMI 8 - SC - Income Tax

Is it permissible for the AO under the Income-tax Act to adopt different methods of valuation of excise duty paid raw material when purchased and the unconsumed raw material on hand at the end of the year - view of the AO that merely because Modvat credit is an irreversible credit available to the manufacturers upon purchase of duty paid raw material, it would amount to income which is liable to be taxed under the Act, is not acceptable

Summary

Issues:
- Permissibility of adopting different valuation methods for excise duty paid raw material when purchased and unconsumed raw material on hand at the end of the year.

Analysis:

The pivotal issue in this case revolves around whether the Assessing Officer under the Income-tax Act can adopt varying valuation methods for excise duty paid raw material at the time of purchase and the unconsumed raw material on hand at year-end. The assessees, being manufacturing units under the Modvat scheme, receive credit for excise duty paid on raw materials purchased and utilized in manufacturing excisable goods. The Assessing Officer contended that the Modvat credit should be treated as income or an income-like advantage and added back to the assessee's income. However, the Tribunal uniformly held that the Modvat credit should not be added back. The High Court, in addressing the issue, emphasized that the Assessing Officer must adopt the method regularly employed by the assessee unless it makes correct income computation impossible. The method chosen must align with accepted accounting principles and cannot treat outgoings as income under the Act.

The High Court analyzed different valuation methods, including the "gross method" and the "net method," to value stock. It concluded that regardless of the method chosen, the result remains the same. The court rejected the Assessing Officer's view that Modvat credit should be taxed as income, emphasizing that the credit does not constitute taxable income. The assessees consistently applied the "net method" for both raw material purchase and valuation of unconsumed stock, which the court deemed appropriate. The Assessing Officer's approach of using different methods for purchase and valuation was deemed erroneous and not reflective of actual income generation.

In considering relevant case law, the court clarified that the cost of raw material should be exclusive of Modvat credit when calculating the cost of the final product. This principle does not extend to the valuation of unconsumed raw material or work-in-progress. The court found that the High Court's judgment was sound, dismissing the appeals by the Department without costs. The judgment underscores the importance of consistency in valuation methods and adherence to accounting principles in income computation under the Income-tax Act.