9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (7) TMI 94 - AT - Income TaxValuation of Closing stock - method of weighted average rate adopted by assessee - Revenue contended undervaluation of stock - Held that - It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has valued the stock at weighted average cost in the current year and the same method was followed by assessee in earlier years and it was accepted by the Department while finalizing the assessment u/s. 143(3). The assessee has also adopted the same method for arriving at the cost of goods sold . The method of valuation is also in consonance with the I.T. Act and the Accounting Standards prescribed by ICAI. Similar valuation method of stock has been accepted by the Department in case of its sister concern. The amount of sales tax and VAT embedded in the value of purchase and sale has also been reflected in the weighted average cost. No material has been brought on record by Revenue before us to controvert the aforesaid facts. A.O. without giving any observation /calculation has finalized the valuation on an add-hoc basis. Said approach of assessment of the A.O cannot be approved. Hence, CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues: Valuation of closing stock, Method of valuation, Consistency in valuation method
Valuation of Closing Stock: The appeal concerns the valuation of closing stock by the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07. The Revenue disputed the valuation of closing stock by the assessee, which led to the addition of Rs.2,50,63,437/- by the Assessing Officer. The assessee contended that the valuation method employed was in line with Accounting Standard AS-2, using the weighted average cost method. The CIT (A) accepted the assessee's method, noting that the weighted average cost was correctly determined and reflected the sales tax and VAT embedded in the value of purchase and sale. The CIT (A) emphasized the importance of consistency in valuation methods and highlighted that the Revenue had accepted a similar method in the case of the assessee's sister concern. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, stating that the Revenue failed to provide sufficient material to challenge the valuation method adopted by the assessee. Method of Valuation: The dispute also revolved around the method of valuation employed by the assessee, specifically the weighted average cost method. The Revenue argued that the assessee undervalued inventories by using this method, citing previous court decisions. However, the assessee maintained that the method was consistently followed, accepted by the Department in previous assessments, and aligned with the Income Tax Act and accounting standards. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, emphasizing the importance of adherence to consistent valuation methods and noting that the Revenue did not provide any new evidence to dispute the method used by the assessee. Consistency in Valuation Method: The issue of consistency in valuation method was crucial in this case. The Tribunal highlighted that the assessee had consistently applied the weighted average cost method for valuing stock, which had been accepted by the Department in prior assessments. The Tribunal stressed the principle of consistency in valuation methods, even though the principle of res judicata does not directly apply to income tax proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's attempt to value stock at close intervals each month was not substantiated with conclusive evidence, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision to delete the addition made by the Revenue, emphasizing the importance of maintaining consistency in valuation methods. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT (A)'s decision regarding the valuation of closing stock and the method of valuation adopted by the assessee. The judgment underscores the significance of consistency in valuation methods, adherence to accounting standards, and the burden of proof on the Revenue to challenge established valuation practices without sufficient evidence.
|
