M/S Tropical Clothing Co.pvt.ltd v. The Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax
High Court
01 Dec 2008 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
M/S Tropical Clothing Co.pvt.ltd v. The Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax
Date of order
01 Dec 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In M/S Tropical Clothing Co.pvt.ltd v. The Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: Main issue is : whether assessee is justified in changing method of accounting in respect of the accessories contending that they have not used at the end of the previous year.
Decision: In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL No. 254 OF 2006.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 254 OF 2006.
M/s Tropical Clothing Co.Pvt.Ltd. ..Appellant.
Vs
The Joint Commissioner of Income-tax ..Respondent.
Ms Vasanti B. Patel, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent.
CORAM: Dr.S. RADHAKRISHNAN
CORAM: Dr.S. RADHAKRISHNAN
AND V.C.DAGA, JJ.
AND V.C.DAGA, JJ.
DATED: 1st DECEMBER, 2008.
DATED: 1st DECEMBER, 2008.
P.C.:
P.C.:----
----
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The learned counsel for the Appellant has
tendered the draft of reframed substantial questions
of law. The same is taken on record and marked "X"
for identification. Leave granted. Amendment to be
carried out within a period of two weeks from today.
3. Perused judgment of the Income-tax Appellate
Tribunal. Main issue is : whether assessee is
justified in changing method of accounting in respect
of the accessories contending that they have not used
at the end of the previous year. They appear on the
closing stock. In that context, the Tribunal has
considered the same and has observed in paragraphs 7,
10 and 11 as under:
7."Briefly stated, facts of the case in
relation to this issue are that till
assessment year 1997-98 the value of stock of
assessee remaining unused was being shown in
the closing stock. The assessee company has
changed the method of accounting in this
respect, and decided to write off the
accessories even if it is unused on the last
date of previous year and appear as closing
stock. The Assessing Officer did not agree
with this change of method of accounting, and
added to the value of the closing stock an
amount of Rs. 10,20,996/- on that count.
10. After considering the rival submissions
and perusing other material on record, we find
no infirmity in the finding of the CIT (A) in
this regard. Undisputedly, unused stock was
on account of buttons, elastic, labels,
threads, etc. and these items cannot be held
that they have become obsolete. It may be
possible that these items may not have their
full value, but it cannot be said that there
is no value for these items. Therefore, we
are of the considered opinion that change of
method in this regard was not bona fide.
Nothing was brought on record to show that
ultimately what happened to the stock of these
items. Therefore, in view of these facts and
circumstances, and in view of the reasons
given by CIT (A) we confirm the order of the
CIT (A) on this issue.
11. Ground no.4 is against confirmation of
the action of the A.O. in reducing 90% of the
following miscellaneous income aggregating to
Rs.3,40,000/- from the profits of business,
for purposes of computation of relief under S.
80HHC."
4. In view of the aforesaid finding that change
of method of accounting was not considered to be bona
fide. Over and above, nothing has been brought on
record, even to show as to what happened to the stock
of more than Rs. 10,00,000/-.
5. We agree with the view taken by the Tribunal
in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. In
view of the aforesaid categorical findings of fact,
there is absolutely no merit in the appeal. No
substantial question of law is involved.
6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
(V.C. DAGA,J)
(V.C. DAGA,J)(DR S. RADHAKRISHNAN,J)
(V.C. DAGA,J)
(DR S. RADHAKRISHNAN,J)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.