Case Law Details
In this case assessee is receiving mobilization advance from customers. This is to enable the assessee to purchase the raw material for the proposed work. As per the assessee’s method of accounting, the material, finished or semi finished stocks is transferred to customers work site for installation through invoices. The customer is billed and the amount is credited to sales account at pro-rata to the extent work is done and billed from time to time. The mobilization advance is accordingly adjusted proportionately.
This system of accounting does not suffer from any short coming. Moreover, it has been accepted by the department in earlier years. Under the circumstances, when assessee is following an acceptable method accounting and that also for a number of years, there is no reason to change the same. There is no change in facts or law as compared to earlier years. Hence, no change is warranted as the mobilization advances is ultimately offered for taxation as income as per a consistent method of accounting followed by the assessee.
In this regard, we also place reliance upon the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Dalmia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd. 281 ITR 346, wherein it was held that for rejecting the view taken in earlier assessment years, there must be material change in the fact, situation or in law.
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI
I.T.A. No. 1924/Del/2011 – A.Y.: 2008-09
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Dear sir
How apply this to a construction company (develop,build and sell the apartments0
A Rider
SC case IS,- UoI v Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706. It may be interesting to observe that, the doctrine of STARE DECISIS itself has come under a cloud because of a contra view in another SC case. That was dealt with in the article – 166 Taxman 72 (Mag).
Prima facie, any such deviation attempted by the assessing authority as in the instant case, if permitted, might lead to chaos and confusioin in making a proper asessment ; not just confined to the year of deviation but for years to follow as well. In saying so, one has in kind the cotroversies, THOUGH AVOIDABLE EVEN FROM A COMMONN SENSE POINT OF VIEW,repeatedly used to arise and taken to courts for adjudication on the aspect of any change in the ‘method of valuation’ of stock-in-trade.Albeit, in the ultimate analysis, entailing no loss to the revenue,- barring the socalled timing difference.
In this context, one is perforce reminded of the ageold doctrine appliocable to the concept of “precedent” , -known as, “STARE DECISIS”, which courts, more often than not, consider prudent to go by/follow, unless absolutely warranted in a given case, with identical factual matrix,coming up for adjudication at any later point in time. For a detailed discussion thereof, the SC judgment in the case of Andolan Bachao mat be read.