M/S. RING PLUS AQUA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) - IX, MUMBAI

Having heard rival submissions, we find merit in the contentions of the assessee. The closing stock is generally valued at cost or market value whichever is lower. The rejected bearings naturally command lesser value than the cost. We notice that the assessee had obtained a valuation report from a Chartered Engineer and accordingly valued the closing stock of rejected bearings. However, it so turned that the assessee could realize higher value at the time of actual sales. As submitted by Ld A.R, the fair market value of closing stock was arrived on the basis of trends prevailing at the point of time of valuation. It is also known to everyone that the market situation is volatile and the prices of commodities keep changing upon various factors. Hence, the subsequent realization of higher price at the time of actual sale of rejected bearings, in our view, cannot be a ground to disturb the valuation arrived at by the assessee. Even otherwise, the value of closing stock becomes the value of opening stock in the succeeding year. Hence, any variation made in the value of closing stock should be given corresponding effect in the opening stock of succeeding year. Hence, we are of the view that there is no justification in disturbing the value determined by the assessee on the rejected bearings, that too, on the basis of subsequent sales realization. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete this addition.

The next issue relates to the claim for deduction of Rs.6,900/- relating to preliminary expenses. It was submitted that the assessee was 4 allowed the claim of Rs.6900/- relating to preliminary expenses in the earlier years also, since the Income tax Act allows the preliminary expenses over a period of ten/five years in equal instalments. It was submitted that the amount of Rs.6,900/- was part of the instalment that is required to be allowed. We find merit in this submission. Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the deduction of Rs.6900/- relating to preliminary expenses.

The next issue relates to the claim of sales return of rejected bearings amounting to Rs.2.16 crores. We heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. We notice that the AO has disallowed the claim on the reasoning that the assessee could not prove its claim of sales return with conclusive evidences. The ld CIT(A) also confirmed the same.

At the time of hearing, the Ld A.R took us through various documents consisting of correspondences between the assessee and its customers, correspondences between the assessee and its bankers, the correspondence between the banker and Reserve Bank of India, certificate of the auditors with regard to the rejected bearings etc. to submit that there were ample evidences available with the assessee to prove the claim of sales return. He further submitted that some of the bearings were not returned by the customers and was not also demanded by the assessee also, since the cost of transportation would add up to the loss already suffered by the assessee. He further submitted that some of the returned goods were lying in the godown of Customs department and they have been auctioned by the Customs authorities. He further submitted that the assessing officer himself has doubted about the valuation of the rejected bearings and has made an addition of Rs.15.00 lakhs. Accordingly he submitted that the assessing officer, having considered the rejected

The Ld D.R, on the contrary, placed strong reliance on the orders passed by the tax authorities.

We have earlier noticed that the claim of sales return was disallowed by the AO on the reasoning that the same was not conclusively proved. However, the documents referred before us including the correspondences made with the banks and Reserve bank of India, in our view, prima facie show that there is merit in the claim of the assessee. The auction made by the Customs authorities further vindicates the claim of the assessee. Hence, in our view, the claim of the assessee should be examined in the light of available evidences, the difficulties faced by the assessee, the commercial expediency involved in not bringing the goods back to India, other circumstantial evidences etc. Under these set of facts and also at this stage, it would also be difficult to submit fool proof evidences. Hence, we are of the view that the various evidences furnished by the assessee needs fresh examination at the end of the AO in the light of above said observations. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to examine this issue afresh in the light of observations made supra.

The next issue relates to the addition of Excise duty to the closing stock value of Finished goods. The Ld A.R submitted that the amendment made in sec. 145A with regard to the inclusion of tax, duty, cess, fee etc. was brought into the Income tax Act by Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 w.e.f. 1.4.1999. Accordingly he submitted that the dispute under consideration is governed by the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd (261 ITR 275). We have gone through the said decision and notice that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the valuation of purchases and unconsumed stock at Net of modvat credit is a proper method. The case of the assessee is that the profit and loss account is prepared net of excise duty and the said method has been consistently followed every year. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the above said case that same treatment should be given to both the raw material purchases and closing stock. Accordingly it held that it was not permissible for the AO to adopt the “gross method” for valuation of raw materials at the time of purchase and the “net method” for valuation of stock on hand. Accordingly, we find merit in the contentions of the assessee, since the AO has made adjustment only to the closing stock of finished goods without making corresponding adjustments to the purchases. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition.

The next issue relates to the disallowance of reversal of export incentives by way of export premium. The assessee worked out the Export premium by reducing the premium pertaining to sales return by way of export rejections. However, the AO added the same and the Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the same. The Ld A.R submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has resolved this issue in the case of Excel Industries (358 ITR 298) by stating that the export incentives shall accrue only at the time

We heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. We notice that the assessee has been following the system of accounting for the expected export incentives in its books of account. Since the assessee took the view that the export incentives shall not be available on the sales returns of exported goods, it has reversed the incentive income accounted by it. The accounting system followed by the assessee may be in accordance with the method consistently followed by the assessee. However, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Excel Industries Ltd, the Export incentives can be considered to have been accrued only in the year in which it was used and not in the year of Export. Hence, under the principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the impugned addition is liable to be deleted. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete this addition.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned गधर्ा पधईर / Guard file. 6. आदेशधनुसधय/ BY ORDER,सहधमक ऩंजीकधय (Asstt.