Tribunal Rules on Retirement Fund & Stock Valuation Perquisites

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Versus Income-Tax Officer.

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Versus Income-Tax Officer. - ITD 018, 064, TTJ 026, 575, Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance u/s 40(c)/40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Valuation of closing stock.

Disallowance u/s 40(c)/40A(5):
The Tribunal addressed the disallowance of Rs. 1,80,750 contributed to the directors/employees Retirement Benefit Fund Trust as a perquisite. This issue was covered by the Tribunal's decision for the assessment year 1973-74 in the assessee's own case, which was against the assessee. Other grounds of appeal, such as reimbursement of medical expenses, disallowance of foreign travel expenses, and disallowance of depreciation claimed on assets used for scientific purposes, were not pressed.

Valuation of Closing Stock:
The ITO found that the assessee was valuing the closing stock exclusive of customs and other fiscal levies, which he deemed incorrect. The ITO estimated the value of the closing stock on a proportionate basis, suggesting an addition of Rs. 1.25 crores, which was later restricted by the IAC to Rs. 25.96 lakhs. The assessee challenged this addition.

The assessee argued that it had been following a consistent method of valuing the stock for several years, which had been accepted by the department. The method involved excluding fiscal levies from the valuation of both finished goods and work-in-progress. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that disturbing this valuation would not affect the overall income over the years and referenced section 43B, which supports the assessee's case by allowing deductions of fiscal levies when paid.

The department argued that the exclusion of fiscal levies and other direct expenses from the valuation of closing stock resulted in an incorrect computation of profit. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the ITO's revaluation, stating that the method followed by the assessee did not reflect the true profits of the business.

The Tribunal noted that the method of valuing the closing stock should be consistent and should reflect the true profits of the business. It emphasized that the same method of valuation should be adopted for both the opening and closing stock to ensure accurate computation of annual profit.

The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's method of excluding fiscal levies from the valuation of closing stock was not justified. It held that tampering with the method of stock valuation followed by the assessee was neither necessary nor justified for arriving at the correct profit from the business. The additions made by such revaluation were deleted, and the ITO was directed to accept the profit based on the method of stock valuation followed by the assessee.

Separate Judgment by Judicial Member:
The Judicial Member disagreed with the view taken by the Accountant Member regarding the valuation of closing stock. He argued that the non-inclusion of fiscal duties in valuing the closing stock was incorrect and that these duties should be included. He suggested that the matter be re-examined by the ITO based on the guidelines issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants, ensuring that any expenses claimed as deductions in the profit and loss account should be included in the valuation of the closing stock.

Third Member Decision:
The President, acting as the Third Member, agreed with the Judicial Member. He emphasized that the method of valuing the closing stock adopted by the assessee did not result in the determination of true and correct profits. The Third Member concluded that the department was justified in rejecting the assessee's method of valuation and revaluing the closing stock on a proper basis. The matter was restored to the ITO for re-examination and revaluation of the closing stock, ensuring that fiscal duties and other expenses were included in the valuation.