Genuine purchase valuation and unreliable accounts principles limit revenue estimates of depreciation cost and suppressed production

Where depreciable assets were acquired under a genuine purchase agreement supported by independent valuation, the revenue could not go behind the agreed values to rework the original cost unless there was material showing fraud, collusion, inflation, deflation, or other reason to distrust the stated consideration. On that basis, the agreed cost of the plant, machinery and buildings had to be accepted. The estimated addition for alleged understated production of yarn and soft waste also failed because the assessee's regular records were not shown to be unreliable, the spinning process did not permit easy sectional quantity records, and the estimate rested on assumptions rather than supporting material.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revenue authorities were precluded from going behind the purchase agreement dated 14 October 1945 in order to ascertain the original cost of the plant, machinery and buildings for depreciation purposes; and (ii) whether there was material to support the addition of Rs. 50,000 towards alleged understated production of yarn and soft waste.

Issue (i): Whether the revenue authorities were precluded from going behind the purchase agreement dated 14 October 1945 in order to ascertain the original cost of the plant, machinery and buildings for depreciation purposes.

Analysis: The agreement separately valued the depreciable assets and the supporting valuation reports for the buildings and machinery were prepared by independent experts before the agreement. The record did not disclose fraud, collusion, inflation, deflation, or any other circumstance showing that the stated values were not the real purchase price to the assessee. In the absence of material justifying suspicion, the authorities could not substitute their own estimate of cost by disregarding the agreed valuation.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee. The authorities were precluded from going behind the agreement for determining the original cost of the plant, machinery and buildings.

Issue (ii): Whether there was material to support the addition of Rs. 50,000 towards alleged understated production of yarn and soft waste.

Analysis: The spinning process was continuous and no sectional quantitative record after the blowing room could realistically be maintained. The assessee had regular accounts for cotton consumed and yarn produced, and the increase in dead loss was explained by the use of inferior cotton. The estimate of suppressed production was drawn largely from assumptions about losses in later stages of the process, without supporting material showing that the book results were unreliable or that the proviso to section 13 could properly be invoked.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee. The addition of Rs. 50,000 was not sustainable on the material on record.

Final Conclusion: The common question on depreciation was decided for the assessee, and the addition for alleged understated production was also disallowed, while the third question relating to litigation expenses was not finally determined and was directed to be considered separately.

Ratio Decidendi: Where purchase consideration for depreciable assets is fixed by a genuine agreement supported by expert valuation and no material shows fraud or artificial inflation or deflation, the revenue cannot disregard that agreed cost; and a trading estimate cannot replace regular book results unless there is material showing the accounts are unreliable and the statutory conditions for estimation are satisfied.

---