Facts of the Case
National Fertilizers Ltd., a public sector undertaking
engaged in manufacturing and distribution of fertilizers, maintained inventory
including stores and spare parts. During the financial year relevant to
Assessment Year 2004-05, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) made
observations regarding diminution in the value of obsolete, surplus, and
non-moving inventory and advised proper valuation assessment.
Pursuant to such observations, the assessee appointed an
independent engineering valuer for item-wise valuation of slow-moving stock.
Based on the valuation report, the value of such stock was determined at ₹47.76
crores.
The Assessing Officer rejected this valuation on the ground
that the valuation at 5% of original cost lacked scientific basis and made
additions to income. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the
Assessing Officer’s findings.
However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) accepted
the assessee’s valuation methodology and deleted the additions, leading the
Revenue to file appeals before the Delhi High Court.
Issues Involved
- Whether
the assessee was justified in changing its method of valuation of
slow-moving stock under Section 145?
- Whether
valuation based on an independent engineering expert’s report was legally
sustainable?
- Whether
the Assessing Officer could reject the revised stock valuation without
conducting an alternative valuation exercise?
- Whether
adoption of AS-2 for inventory valuation constituted a bona fide
accounting change?
Petitioner’s Arguments (Revenue Department)
- The
Revenue contended that the ITAT erred in accepting the revised valuation
method.
- It
argued that valuation at merely 5% of original cost lacked scientific
justification.
- The
Revenue asserted that the assessee’s change in accounting method was
arbitrary and impermissible.
- It
was submitted that such reduction in stock value artificially suppressed
taxable income.
Respondent’s Arguments (Assessee)
- The
assessee argued that the valuation change was compelled by CAG
observations.
- It
contended that AS-2 mandated realistic inventory valuation.
- The
revised valuation was based on an independent engineering expert’s
item-wise report.
- The
change was bona fide and consistently followed in subsequent years.
- Section
145 permits change in accounting method where justified by factual
circumstances.
Court Findings / Court Order
The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeals and
upheld the ITAT order.
The Court held:
- The
assessee had acted bona fide in changing the method of valuation based on
CAG observations.
- The
valuation was supported by an expert engineering valuation report.
- The
Assessing Officer failed to bring any contrary valuation evidence on
record.
- Mere
rejection without an alternative scientific valuation was unjustified.
- Section
145 does not prohibit change in accounting method if the change is
regular, bona fide, and justified by circumstances.
The Court concluded that no substantial question of law
arose in the appeals.
Important Clarification by the Court
The Court clarified an important principle:
“Regularly followed” under Section 145 does not
mean “permanently followed.”
An assessee is entitled to change the method of accounting
or valuation when circumstances justify such change, especially when it aligns
with recognized accounting standards and bona fide commercial realities.
This is a significant clarification for inventory valuation
disputes and accounting method changes under tax law.
Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2017:DHC:9034-DB/SRB08022017ITA7832016_143829.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and
knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information
from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or
advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability
arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the
assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment