Average-cost stock valuation upheld where bulk goods are not individually identifiable and the method reflects real profits.

Where stock in bulk is not individually earmarked, closing stock may be valued at the regularly adopted average cost method if it accords with commercial accounting practice and fairly reflects real profits; the actual cost of the year-end stock is not necessarily controlling. The Court also accepted that a reasonable stock-valuation method suited to the nature of the business could be used where it properly disclosed profits. On the tins shortage issue, a recorded concession before the appellate authority could not be ignored in the absence of evidence to displace it, so the Rs. 2,000 addition was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, for computing real profits, the closing stock could be valued at the average cost of the whole year's purchases rather than at the actual cost of the closing stock; (ii) whether the method of stock valuation adopted by the assessee was correct on the facts; (iii) whether the Tribunal could disregard the statement recorded by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and sustain the addition of Rs. 2,000 on account of shortage in tins.

Issue (i): Whether, for computing real profits, the closing stock could be valued at the average cost of the whole year's purchases rather than at the actual cost of the closing stock.

Analysis: The governing provision permitted income, profits and gains to be computed in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee, subject to departmental intervention only where no regular method existed or where the method failed to disclose the true profits. The Court held that the choice of stock valuation method was part of the assessee's accounting method. In the case of manufactured goods and raw materials kept in bulk and issued for processing without earmarking individual purchases, commercial practice justified valuation by average cost for the period. The fact that the actual cost of the closing stock happened to be ascertainable in this year was treated as accidental and incapable of fixing a general rule.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to value the closing stock at the average cost of the year's purchases, and not at the actual cost of the closing stock.

Issue (ii): Whether the method of stock valuation adopted by the assessee was correct on the facts.

Analysis: The method adopted by the assessee conformed to accepted commercial accounting principles and properly reflected the profits of the business. The Court accepted that stock-in-trade may be valued at cost or market price, whichever is lower, and that the assessee could adopt a reasonable method suited to the nature of the goods and the business. The department's attempt to confine valuation to the purchases most closely connected with the closing stock was rejected.

Conclusion: The assessee's method of valuation was correct on the facts and circumstances of the case.

Issue (iii): Whether the Tribunal could disregard the statement recorded by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and sustain the addition of Rs. 2,000 on account of shortage in tins.

Analysis: The Appellate Assistant Commissioner had recorded that the assessee's representative did not wish to press the objection to the Rs. 2,000 addition. No material was placed to displace that record, and the Tribunal was justified in treating it as binding for the purpose of the appeal before it. On that footing, the reopening of the matter was not permissible.

Conclusion: The Tribunal could not disregard the recorded statement, and the addition of Rs. 2,000 was rightly sustained.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in the assessee's favour on the principal stock-valuation questions, while the addition relating to shortage in tins was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the nature of the business makes individual identification of stock impracticable, closing stock may be valued by a commercially accepted average-cost method if that method is regularly and honestly applied and truly reflects profits; a recorded concession before the appellate authority cannot be ignored in the absence of proof that the record is or unreliable.

---