Inventory Valuation Must Follow ICDS-II and Section 145A; LIFO Method Disallowed for Consistency

The ITAT Kolkata held that inventory valuation must comply with ICDS-II and section 145A, disallowing the LIFO method previously used by the assessee. Both opening and closing stock should be valued consistently under ICDS-II to accurately reflect profits. The AO was directed to recompute profits for the impugned year using ICDS-II and to assess the impact on prior years separately under section 148, as the surplus arises from accumulated adjustments since ICDS-II's introduction. The assessee was allowed to submit detailed calculations for past assessment years, which the AO must apply uniformly. The appeal was partly allowed with the orders of the CIT(A) and AO set aside.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether the addition of Rs. 11,467,009 on account of undervaluation of closing stock, made by applying Weighted Average Cost Method (WACM) contrary to the assessee's consistent use of Last In First Out (LIFO) method, is justified.Whether the valuation of opening and closing stock must be on the same method, particularly when ICDS-II mandates valuation by FIFO or Weighted Average Cost Method.Whether separate valuation of different categories of stock (slow-moving old ornaments and fast-moving new ornaments) by distinct weighted average cost is required under ICDS-II.Whether the addition on account of revaluation of stock leads to taxation of fictional or unrealized income, violating the "Real Income Principle."Whether the retrospective application of ICDS-II valuation method affects prior years and how the cascading effect on opening and closing stock valuation should be addressed.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The addition of Rs. 11,467,009 based on applying Weighted Average Cost Method instead of the consistently followed LIFO method is not justified as it leads to "distorted, fictional and unrealized Income" and violates the principle that "no fictional income could be transformed into real income."The valuation of opening and closing stock must be on the "same basis" to avoid anomalous and abnormal results; therefore, if ICDS-II method is applied to closing stock, it must also be applied to opening stock, consistent with the decision in P.A. Jose (supra).The assessee's contention that different categories of stock require separate weighted average cost valuation under ICDS-II is recognized as a valid ground but was not finally adjudicated in this order.The addition relating to undervaluation of stock arising from retrospective application of ICDS-II has a "cascading effect" on opening and closing stock of prior years; hence, the entire addition cannot be taxed in the current assessment year alone but must be apportioned over relevant years through reassessment proceedings under section 148.The intimation order under section 143(1) and the appellate order confirming the addition are set aside, and the Assessing Officer is directed to recompute income applying ICDS-II valuation consistently for opening and closing stock and to assess the impact year-wise.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the statutory framework under sections 145, 145A, and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the mandatory Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS-II) notified under section 145(2).It relied on precedent, including the Supreme Court decisions in Chainrup Sampatram v. CIT and ALA Firm v. CIT, which establish that revaluation of stock does not generate taxable income unless realized and that only "real income" is taxable, not "fictional or notional profits."The Court emphasized the principle that the valuation method for opening and closing stock must be consistent to avoid artificially inflated profits and anomalous results, as upheld in P.A. Jose (Kerala High Court) regarding retrospective application of ICDS-II.The decision acknowledges that the retrospective application of ICDS-II valuation standards impacts multiple assessment years, necessitating reassessment under section 148 rather than lump sum addition in a single year to maintain fairness and accuracy in income computation.There was no dissent noted; the ruling reflects a doctrinal adherence to the "Real Income Principle" and consistent application of accounting standards mandated by statute.

---