Taxpayer allowed deduction for year-end forex losses under mercantile accounting where consistent foreign currency liability revaluation is followed
ITAT (Delhi - AT) allowed the taxpayer's appeal, holding that foreign exchange losses recognized under the mercantile system are admissible where year-end revaluation of outstanding foreign currency liabilities is consistently followed. The tribunal found an actual outstanding US$ liability and that exchange-rate variances recorded at the financial year end correctly reflect profit-and-loss impact, despite being unrealized. It set aside the revisional order denying the claim and held the assessee's method of accounting and resulting forex loss claim to be justified and allowable.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether foreign exchange loss debited in Profit & Loss account in respect of long-outstanding import liabilities (not settled due to alleged seizure/inquiry) is allowable as a deduction where the assessee follows mercantile (accrual) system of accounting and records exchange differences at year-end.
2. Whether a claim for foreign exchange loss is inadmissible because the liability is allegedly doubtful, notional (no actual payment made), or the supporting documentary details (such as original bills, proof of seizure, communications from investigative agency or bank) are not placed on record.
3. Whether the assessing/revision/appeal authorities were justified in disallowing the entire claimed exchange loss on grounds of incorrect exchange rates used by the assessee and on findings of procedural defects in proof of underlying import transactions.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Allowability of foreign exchange loss under mercantile/accrual accounting
Legal framework: Under the mercantile system and applicable accounting standards, foreign currency transactions outstanding at year-end are to be retranslated at closing exchange rates and exchange differences recognised in the Profit & Loss account.
Precedent Treatment: No judicial precedent is cited in the record; the Tribunal applies accountingprinciples and recognition norms as the governing standard.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the assessee's books showing long-outstanding liabilities in US dollars arising from imports effected in earlier years and noted consistent application of the accrual/mercantile method across years. The Tribunal explained by example that an outstanding foreign currency liability must be restated at the closing rate to reflect present liability and resultant exchange gain/loss, and that such recognition, though not involving immediate cash outflow, is proper accounting treatment and therefore competent to generate deductible business loss, subject to genuineness of the underlying liability.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - recognition of exchange differences in Profit & Loss in the hands of an assessee following the mercantile system is permissible when liabilities are genuine and recorded consistently; Obiter - illustrative numeric example of how restatement produces exchange difference.
Conclusions: The Tribunal held that, on the accounting principle accepted and consistently followed by the assessee, the foreign exchange loss recorded at year-end is justifiable and deductible, and directed deletion of the addition on this ground.
Issue 2 - Effect of alleged doubtfulness of liability, non-payment and lack of original bills (DRI enquiry) on allowability
Legal framework: Deductibility requires that claimed expenses/losses be bona fide and supported by relevant records; tax authorities may call for evidence to establish genuineness of transactions and the right to make payments (including original import documents) where relevant to allow remittances under RBI rules.
Precedent Treatment: No specific authorities distinguished or followed; lower authorities treated absence of documentary proof and existence of DRI enquiry as affecting bona fides.
Interpretation and reasoning: The lower authorities (PCIT and NFAC/CIT(A)) found the liability doubtful because original bills and proof of seizure or stage of inquiry by DRI were not placed on record, the bank allegedly refused remittance, and overseas suppliers' stance on non-payment was not proven. They reasoned those facts could indicate dubious bills or transactions and therefore concluded the exchange loss was not allowable. The Tribunal, however, noted that the books of account reflect the outstanding liability in foreign currency and that non-payment resulting from an external embargo (alleged DRI action and consequent bank refusal) does not, by itself, render the accounting recognition of exchange difference incorrect where the liability is recorded and the accrual method is followed. The Tribunal observed that the assessee consistently carried such liabilities and recognised exchange differences across years and that mercantile recognition is appropriate even when settlement is delayed for reasons beyond the assessee's control.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - absence of immediate remittance or ongoing enquiry does not automatically negate the genuineness of the recorded foreign currency liability or bar recognition of exchange differences where the liability is properly reflected in books and accounting standards require year-end restatement; Obiter - express admonition that assessable genuineness may still be tested by authorities with documentary evidence.
Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that mere non-payment and asserted DRI proceedings without proof do not justify blanket disallowance; in the present facts the outstanding foreign currency liability appeared in books and the method of accounting was consistent, therefore the exchange loss was allowable and the disallowance was to be deleted.
Issue 3 - Alleged incorrect exchange rates and partial quantification of allowable loss
Legal framework: Exchange differences must be computed using correct closing rates; tax authorities may recompute allowable amount if assessee's adopted rates are erroneous. Where a part of claimed loss is found misstated, the correct quantification is relevant to assessment/appeal.
Precedent Treatment: No authorities cited; AO and PCIT recalculated an alternative (lower) allowable figure and NFAC accepted AO's view that lower figure would be the correct loss if allowed, yet disallowed entire claim.
Interpretation and reasoning: The revision/AO record pointed out errors in rates used by the assessee for specific dates (e.g., 31.03.2013 and 31.03.2014) and suggested a lower correct foreign exchange loss figure (Rs. 44,60,488) as opposed to the claimed Rs. 1,19,56,753. NFAC endorsed AO's numerical critique and found the assessee's computation incorrect and unsupported. The Tribunal acknowledged the AO's computation but placed primary reliance on the accounting principle and consistent recognition practice; it observed that even if the loss appears large due to cumulative restatement over years, the method produces increases as rupee depreciates and thus the loss recorded is a legitimate consequence of mercantile accounting. The Tribunal directed deletion without ordering a recomputation in the body of its reasoning, implicitly accepting the assessee's working as within acceptable accounting practice given the recorded foreign currency balances and consistent methodology.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - a tax authority may correct computation where rates used are demonstrably incorrect; however, where method and underlying liability are genuine and consistently applied, the accounting recognition of exchange difference is permissible even if the quantum appears large; Obiter - assessment of precise exchange rates ought to be resolved by factual verification if contested.
Conclusions: The Tribunal favoured the assessee's accounting treatment and deleted the disallowance in full, holding that the exchange loss claimed was justified on mercantile/accounting grounds despite lower authorities' contentions about rates and documentary gaps; the authorities' alternative quantification did not sustain complete denial.
Cross-references and final disposition
Related points: Issues 1 and 2 are interlinked - allowability depends both on correct application of accounting standards and on the prima facie genuineness of the underlying liability; the Tribunal resolved the tension in favour of accounting treatment where the liability was carried in books consistently, and absence of detailed proof of DRI action did not suffice to nullify that treatment.
Final conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleted the addition of Rs. 1,19,56,753 relating to foreign exchange loss, and directed that the recorded exchange difference be accepted in view of the mercantile system of accounting and consistent method followed by the assessee; factual doubts regarding seizure/DRI action and the absence of certain documents were held insufficient to sustain disallowance.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
