COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-GUJARAT-II vs. KWALITY STEEL SUPPLIERS COMPLEX

CIVIL APPEAL No. 815/2007Supreme Court[2017] 3 S.C.R. 102221 March 2017Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: A.K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN13 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) could not exercise his powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in this case. The Court reasoned that Section 263 is intended to correct erroneous orders prejudicial to the Revenue and requires proper application of mind by the CIT. It cannot be invoked to correct every mistake or when the AO has taken one of the permissible views. The Court noted that while dissolution of a firm typically necessitates valuing assets at market price, this principle applies when the business comes to an end. In this instance, the business continued with the surviving partner who inherited the deceased partner's share. Therefore, there was no necessity to sell the assets, and valuing the stock-in-trade at market price was not required. The view taken by the Assessing Officer in accepting the book value of the stock-in-trade was a plausible and permissible view. Consequently, the CIT could not have invoked Section 263. The High Court's judgment was upheld, and the appeals were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a partnership firm consisting of a mother and son, was dissolved during the assessment year 1993-1994 due to the mother's death. The assessee valued its closing stock at cost price in its return, which was accepted by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) invoked his revisional powers under Section 263, directing the AO to value the closing stock at market price, citing the firm's dissolution. The CIT added 15% of the disclosed closing stock value as profit. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT's order. The High Court, however, set aside the CIT's order, finding the AO's acceptance of the cost price valuation to be a plausible view. The Revenue appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) could validly exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to direct the valuation of closing stock at market price when the Assessing Officer (AO) had accepted the valuation at cost price, and two views were possible. Assessee's Contentions: - The revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 could not be exercised to correct every mistake or error by the AO. - The AO's view in accepting the cost price valuation was plausible and permissible. - The business continued after the dissolution, making market price valuation unnecessary. Revenue's Contentions: - The firm was dissolved, and therefore, the closing stock should have been valued at market price, as per the decision in A.L.A. Firm v. Commissioner of Income Tax. - The AO's acceptance of the cost price valuation was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 97 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

[2017] 3 S.C.R. 1022 A COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-GUJARAT-II B v. KWALITY STEEL SUPPLIERS COMPLEX (Civil Appeal No. 815 of 2007) MARCH 21, 2017 [A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] Income Tax Act, 1961 - s. 263 - Revision of orders prejudicial to Revenue - Valuation of closing stock - On facts, firm consisting C of two partners - Dissolution of partnership firm owing to death of one of the partner - However, business continued to be carried 011 by the surviving partner - Valuation of the closing stock at cost price, by the assessee in return - Said method accepted by the Assessing Officer - CIT in exercise of his revisional juri iction uls.263 directed the AO to value the closing stock at the market D price - Tribunal upheld the same, however, the High Court set aside the order passed by the CIT - On appeal, held: When a t•.1siness continues, it may not be necessary to follow the market rate 10 value the closing stock - View taken by the Assessing Officer in accepting the book value of the stock-in-trade was a plausible and permissible E view - Thus, the CIT could not exercise his powers uls.263 - Order passed by the High Court upheld.

Dismissing the appeal

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →