The ACIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra V. M/s. Axtel Industries Ltd., Panchmahal

ITA 118/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9822 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.118/AHD/2014 / A.Y. 2010-11 ACIT, PANCHMAHAL CIRCLE, GODHRA VS M/S. AXTEL INDUSTRIES LTD., PLOT NO.43/1, VILL: NURPURA, POST:BASKA, HALOL, PANCHMAHAL PAN : AACCA 3227 E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) B Y APPELLANT : SHRI JAMES KURIAN, SR DR B Y RESPONDENT : SHRI AN KIT TALSANIA FOR MILAN MEHTA, AR / DATE OF HEARING : 19/12/2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20/12/2016 / O R D E R PER SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS REVENUES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, ARISES FROM ORDER OF CIT(A)-VI, BARODA DATED 01.10.2013, PASSED IN CASE APPEAL NO. CAB-VI/143/2012-13 DELETING DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION O F RS.97,02,566/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNDERVA LUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF WORK-IN-PROGRESS, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3 ) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, IN SHORT THE ACT. 2. WE NOTICE AT THE OUTSET THAT THE CIT(A)S ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE ELABORATELY DISCUSSES ASSESSING OFFICERS FINDINGS AND ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS RAISED IN THE COURSE OF LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AS UNDER:- 7.1 GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION OF THE WORK IN PROGRESS (WIP). DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD VA LUED THE WORK IN ITA NO. 118/AHD/2014 ACIT VS. M/S. AXTEL INDUSTRIES LTD A.Y. 2010-11 - 2 - PROCESS (WIP) AT 70% OF SALES VALUE OF THE INDIVIDU AL ITEMS, WHEREAS, IT WAS SEEN FROM THE DETAILS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE % COMPLETION OF INDIVIDUAL ITEMS VARIED FROM 20% TO 99% AND AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, MOST OF THE ITEMS WERE VALUED AT MORE THAN 90% OF T HE SALE VALUE. 7.2 THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN A GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 15.75% FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FORMULATED THE VALUE OF THE WIP A S COST OF RAW MATERIAL PLUS COST OF PRODUCTION AND CALCULATED THE SAME AT 84.25% (100% -15.75%) AND REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY T HE WIP MAY NOT BE REVALUED AT 84.25% INSTEAD OF 70% OF THE SALE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, RE-WORKED THE VALUATION OF THE WIP @ 84.25% OF THE SALE VALUE AND ADDED THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.97,02,566/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS SUPPRESSED VALUE OF CLOSING WORK IN PROGRESS. 7.3 DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING S, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER: 0UR COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF CAPITAL GOODS AND HENCE EACH JOB INVOLVES LOT OF SPARE PARTS AND A LONG GESTATION PERIOD FOR FINAL COMPLETION OF THE JOB. MOREOVER, T HE JOB NOT ONLY HAS TO BE COMPLETED, BUT BEFORE DISPATCHED IT IS ASSEMB LED AND TESTED BY THE CLIENT AND THEN AGAIN DISASSEMBLED AND DISPATCH ED AT THE CLIENT'S PLACE OF BUSINESS. FURTHER IN MANY CASES, THE MACHI NERY HAS TO BE ERECTED, COMMISSIONED AND INSTALLED AT CLIENT'S PLA CE OF BUSINESS FOR WHICH SEPARATE CHARGES ARE GIVEN. THUS EACH JOB ON HAND HAD DIFFERENT STAGE OF BEING BILLED. THUS, TO PROVIDE A CONSISTENT POLICY FOR VALUATION OF STOCK, IT WAS DECIDED THAT THE COMPANY ADOPT SALES PRICE MINUS PR OFIT APPROACH FOR VALUATION OF STOCK. ON THE BASIS OF SALES PRICE AND PERCENTAGE OF WORK COMPLETED FOR THE PLANTS/MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT'S BEING MANUFACTURED, WE ARRIVE AT THE VALUE OF PARTIALLY COMPLETED WORK WHICH INCLUDES PROFIT AS THE SAID VALUE IS ON THE BASIS OF SALES V ALUE. THEREAFTER, WE HAVE TO DO FURTHER PROCESS TO COMPLETE THE FINISHED GOODS. ON THE BASIS OF A STANDARD COSTING MODEL, WHICH IS USED TO GIVE OUR ESTIMATED QUOTE FOR PRICE OF A PARTICULAR JOB, TO OBTAIN THE ORDER, OVER THE PERIOD THE SYSTEM WAS ADOPTED THAT THE WORK IN PROCESS BE VALUED AT 70% OF THE SALES VALUE. WE COM PUTE 70% OF THE AFORESAID VALUE, AS WE HAVE TO USE MATERIALS/COMPON ENTS/JOB WORK SER/ICES AND ACCORDINGLY WE HAVE TO INCUR FURTHER C OST TO COMPLETE THE SEMI-FINISHED GOODS. ALSO THERE ARE MANY JOBS ON HA ND, WITH VARYING DEGREES OF COMPLETION AND HENCE AN AVERAGE OF 70% O F SALES VALUE IS ADOPTED FOR VALUATION OF WORK IN PROCESS. FURTHER, TO COMPUTE WORK ITA NO. 118/AHD/2014 ACIT VS. M/S. AXTEL INDUSTRIES LTD A.Y. 2010-11 - 3 - IN PROCESS PROFIT IS NOT ADDED IN VALUATION, AS, UN LESS THE GOODS ARE SOLD, THE PROFITS CANNOT BE REALIZED. AS PER PARA (D) OF ACCOUNTING POLICY OF THE NOTES T O THE ACCOUNTS ATTACHED WITH THE BALANCE SHEET ON VALUATI ON OF STOCK READS AS UNDER:- VALUED AT LOWER OF THE COST OR NET REALIZABLE VALUE . THE SAID METHOD FOR COMPUTATION OF WORK IN PROCESS IS REGULARLY APPLIED FROM THE INCEPTION OF THE COMPANY IN 1993 AND THE SAME METHOD IS CONTINUED TILL DATE AND IT WILL BE C ONTINUED IN FUTURE ALSO AND HENCE THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF VALUATION OF STOCKS. (2) WE MAY MENTION THAT ISSUE REGARDING COMPUTATION OF WORK IN PROCESS WAS NEVER RAISED BY ANY ASSESSING OFFICER A T THE TIME OF HEARING NOR IN ANY ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF T HE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 FROM THE INCEPTION, TILL ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, BEING THE LAST OF THE ASSESSMENT TILL DATE WITH THE INCOME-TA X AUTHORITY OR ANY OTHER AUTHORITY. (3) AS PER SECTION 145A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 THE VALUATION OF INVENTORY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PRO FESSION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSES. ACCORDINGLY WE HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THE ME THOD OF THE VALUATION OF INVENTORY SINCE 1993-94 BEING IN THE F IRST YEAR OF COMMENCEMENT OF MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES IN JUNE 19 93. JUDGMENTS OF VARIOUS HIGH COURTS AND ITAT QUOTED IN OUR LETTER NO. AXTEL/13-14.1-06 DTD. 03.06.2013 ARE REL EVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF OUR CASE. (4) FURTHER WE HAVE BEEN EMPLOYING METHOD OF VALUAT ION OF INVENTORY SINCE 1993-94 AS PER THE ADVICE OF OUR AU DITOR AS PER THEIR LETTER DTD. 02.05.1994.' 7.4 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVATIONS OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER, OTHER MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ON THE ISSUE. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN CAPITAL GOODS MANUFACTURING AS PER THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CLIENTS AND EACH JOB INVOLVES A LOT OF SPARE PARTS AND WORK IN PROCESS AT VARYING DEGREES OF COMPLETION, THE VALUATION OF WHICH AT ANY ONE FLAT RATE, AS A PERCENTAGE OF SALE VALUE, WOULD ALWAYS B E CONTENTIOUS. THE ACCOUNTING POLICIES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE FINALIZED IN 1994 AND THE SAME WAS CODIFIED VIDE AUDITOR'S LETTER DATED 02.05.1994. IN THIS LETTER, THE AUDITORS ITA NO. 118/AHD/2014 ACIT VS. M/S. AXTEL INDUSTRIES LTD A.Y. 2010-11 - 4 - HAVE SUGGESTED THE FOLLOWING ACCOUNTING POLICY FOR THE WORK IN PROCESS GOODS- 'FOR WORK IN PROCESS GOODS AS STATED IN ABOVE PARA ON FINISHED GOODS, THE MANA GEMENT KEEPS 10% FOR COST OF ASSEMBLING, FINISHING, TESTING, PAC KING, COMMISSIONING, OFFICE OVERHEADS, WHICH ARE INCURRED OVER AND ABOVE THE RAW MATERIAL, LABOUR AND USE OF SHOP FLOOR MACH INES AND INTEREST ETC. HENCE, IT IS NECESSARY THAT OVER AND ABOVE PROFIT MARGIN OF 20%, FURTHER 10% IS DEDUCTED FOR THE COST STILL TO BE INCURRED FOR JOBS ON HAND TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF WORK IN PROC ESS, WHEREBY, THE COST OF 'WORK IN PROCESS' JOB WILL BE AT 30% LESS F ROM SALE PRICE. ALSO, IT IS NORMALLY SEEN AND EXPERIENCED THAT THER E ARE JOBS ON HAND WITH VARYING DEGREE OF COMPLETION OF WORK. ON ONE H AND, THERE ARE JOB ON WHICH WORK DONE IS LESS AND ON OTHER THE JOB IS MOSTLY COMPLETE. HENCE ON AVERAGE, IT IS DECIDED TO VALUE WORK IN PROCESS JOB AT SALES LESS 30% OF SALES PRICE. THUS, WE RECOMMEND SALES LESS 30% OF SALES PRICE AS COST FOR VALUATION OF WORK IN PROGRESS.' 7.5 THUS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DEAL ING WITH NUMEROUS SPARE-PARTS AND WORK WAS CARRIED OUT SPECIFICALLY F OR SPECIFIC CLIENTS. THE WORK WAS COMPLETED TO VARYING DEGREES AS ON THE LAS T DATE OF THE F.Y. SINCE THE MANUFACTURING WORK CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT WAS NOT STANDARD WORK AND THE MACHINES/ EQUIPMENTS ETC. MANUFACTURED BY IT WERE SPECIFICALLY MADE FOR SPECIFIC NEEDS OF SPECIFIC CL IENTS, THE INCOMPLETE MACHINES/EQUIPMENTS (I.E. WORK IN PROCESS) HAD ABSO LUTELY NO SALE VALUE, UNLESS UNTIL THE SAME WERE COMPLETED, INSTALLED, CO MMISSIONED AND ACCEPTED BY THE CLIENT. IN THIS SENSE, EVEN IF A PARTICULAR WORK-ORDER WAS 70% COMPLETE, ITS ACTUAL SALE VALUE MAY BE ONLY 10% OF EXPECTED SALE VALUE IN THE MARKET (I.E. SCRAP-VALUE), SINCE IT WAS NOT STA NDARD EQUIPMENT AND THERE WAS NO DEMAND FOR IT FROM OTHER CLIENTS. 7.6 IN CIT VS EMA INDIA LTD. [2006] 157 TAXMAN 536 (ALL), WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN MANUFACTURING GOODS WHICH WER E TAILOR-MADE FOR THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OF ITS CUSTOMERS AND UNLESS T HE WHOLE OF THE MACHINERY WAS COMPLETE, THE WORK IN PROCESS BY ITSE LF HAD NO OTHER UTILITY, HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER- 'IT IS SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT THE STOCK CAN BE VALUED AT THE COST OR AT MARKET RATE. ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN MANUFACTURING THE GOODS, WHICH WERE TAILOR-MADE FOR SPECIFIC REQU IREMENTS OF ITS CUSTOMERS AND UNLESS THE WHOLE OF THE MACHINERY IS COMPLETE, WORK IN PROGRESS BY ITSELF HAS NO OTHER UTILITY. ASSESSE E HAS VALUED THE WORK IN PROGRESS ON THE BASIS OF RAW MATERIAL CONSU MED AT COST PRICE. ITA NO. 118/AHD/2014 ACIT VS. M/S. AXTEL INDUSTRIES LTD A.Y. 2010-11 - 5 - THIS METHOD HAS BEEN ADOPTED SINCE LAST SEVEN YEARS AND ALSO IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. NO OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED BY T HE REVENUE IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS TO SUCH VALUATION. IT WAS FOUND THAT ASSESSEE- COMPANY WAS A PROGRESSIVE COMPANY AND SHOWN OUT PRO FITS ON PROGRESSIVE SCALE FROM YEAR TO YEAR AND CANNOT ESCA PE FROM THE CLUTCHES OF THE REVENUE. THE CLOSING STOCK OF THIS YEAR IS THE OPENING STOCK OF SUBSEQUENT YEAR AND, HENCE, A CONSISTENT M ETHOD ADOPTED FOR VALUATION BY THE ASSESSEE, SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED. THEREFORE, THE SAME METHOD ADOPTED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR VALUING THE STOCK, AS HAS BEEN ADOPTED IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS, C ANNOT BE SAID TO BE UNJUSTIFIED.' 7.7 THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED, DURING THE AP PELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THAT IT IS FOLLOWING THE SAME FORMULA FOR THE VALUA TION OF THE WORK IN PROCESS SINCE A.Y. 1994-1995 AND THE INCOME-TAX AUT HORITIES HAD NEVER CHALLENGED ITS METHOD OF VALUATION OF WORK IN PROCE SS TILL A.Y. 2009-2010. HE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED COPIES OF ASSESSMENTS ORDERS IN ITS OWN CASE FOR LAST FEW YEARS I.E. FROM A.Y. 2002-03 TO A.Y. 2009-10. I T IS NOTED THAT ASSESSMENTS FOR A.Y. 2006-07, 2008-09 AND 2009-10 W ERE COMPLETED U/S 143(3) AND IN NONE OF THE CASES, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAD QUESTIONED THE METHOD OF VALUATION OF WORK IN PROCESS. THEREFORE, THE SAME METHOD OF VALUATION OF WORK IN PROCESS IS REGULARLY APPLIED F ROM THE INCEPTION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN 1993 AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF VALUATION OF STOCK. EVEN SECTION 145A MANDATES T HAT THE VALUATION OF INVENTORY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE INCOM E CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION SH ALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED THE SAME PRINCIPLE FOR VALUATION OF THE OPENING STOCK, WHICH WAS APPLIED FOR VALUATION OF THE CLOSING STOCK AND FURT HER THE SAME METHOD WAS BEING APPLIED CONSISTENTLY EVEN IN ALL PREVIOUS AND ALSO SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 7.8 IN THE CASE OF I.G.E. (INDIA) LTD. VS JCIT, SP L. RANGE 1, MUMBAI, [2008] 26 SOT 367 (MUM.), HON'BLE ITAT, MUMBAI WAS CALLED UPON TO DECIDE THE QUESTIONS 'WHETHER SINCE ASSESSEE HAD BE EN FOLLOWING METHOD OF VALUATION BY ADOPTING ONLY RAW MATERIAL COST SINCE 1994-95 AND SAME HAD NOT BEEN DISTURBED BY REVENUE THERE WAS NO REASON T O DISTURB VALUATION ADOPTED BY ASSESSEE' AND 'WHETHER, THEREFORE, COMMI SSIONER (APPEALS) HAD ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION TO CLOSING STOCK'. WHI LE REPLYING TO BOTH THE QUESTIONS IN AFFIRMATIVE, HON'BLE ITAT HELD AS UNDE R- '...WE FIND THAT THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK HAS TO BE DONE BY ADDING DIRECT COSTS AND OVERHEADS TO THE RAW MATERI AL COST, BUT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEE N FOLLOWING THE METHOD OF VALUATION BY ADOPTING ONLY RAW MATERIAL C OST SINCE 1994- 95 AND THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN DISTURBED BY THE REVEN UE IN SPITE OF ITA NO. 118/AHD/2014 ACIT VS. M/S. AXTEL INDUSTRIES LTD A.Y. 2010-11 - 6 - DIRECTIONS OF THE CIT UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND ALSO THAT THE ACTIVITY HAS COME TO AN END IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997 -98 AND IF THE CLOSING STOCK OF ALL THE FOREGOING YEARS IS DISTURB ED, THE NET EFFECT WOULD BE NIL , WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO DISTURB THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE.' 7.9 IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL), LUDHI ANA VS OSWAL WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. [2009] 2 DTLONLINE130. (PUNJ. & HAR.), HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT HELD THAT, THOUGH IN APPROPRIATE CASES, IT MAY BE OPEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO QUESTION TH E METHOD OF ACCOUNTANCY APPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT THAT COULD BE DONE ONLY IF THE METHOD APPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT TRULY DISCLOSE THE PICTURE OF INCOME DERIVED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE APPLIED THE SAME PRINCIP LE FOR VALUATION OF THE OPENING STOCK, WHICH WAS APPLIED FOR VALUATION OF T HE CLOSING STOCK AND FURTHER THE SAME METHOD WAS BEING APPLIED CONSISTEN TLY EVEN IN ALL SUBSEQUENT YEARS. IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED TRUE PI CTURE OF PROFITS DERIVED AND THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE REJECTED BY APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN CIT V. BRITISH PAINTS INDIA LTD [1991] 188 ITR 44/ 54 TAXMAN 499 (SC). IT FURTHER HELD THAT, IN VIEW OF T HE ABOVE, THE TRIBUNAL CORRECTLY APPLIED THE PRINCIPLE OF LAW FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ADDITION MADE ON THE GROUND OF UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF W ORK IN PROGRESS. 7.10 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE DISTURBED THE METHOD OF VALUATION OF THE WORK IN PROCESS, REGULARLY AND CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE SINCE 1993 AND ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. HENCE THE ADDITION ON TH IS ACCOUNT IS DELETED. THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS ON THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES REITERATING THEIR RESPECTIVE STANDS. SHRI KURIAN (LEARNED SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTA TIVE) STRONGLY SEEKS TO REVIVE THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF VALUATION OF WORK-IN-PROGRESS. IT HAS ALREADY COME ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FINALIZED ITS ACCOUNTING POLICY WAY BA CK IN THE YEAR 1994 REGARDING WORK-IN-PROGRESS GOODS. WE FIND THAT EVE N THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN METICULOUSLY FOLLOWING THE SAME IN VARIOUS REGULAR ASSESSMENTS AS NOTED IN THE LOWER APPELLATE ORDER E XTRACTED HEREINABOVE. NO CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES IS IN ANY WAY POINTED OU T AT REVENUES BEHEST IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. NOR DOES IT INDIC ATE ANY DISTINGUISHING ITA NO. 118/AHD/2014 ACIT VS. M/S. AXTEL INDUSTRIES LTD A.Y. 2010-11 - 7 - FEATURE HEREIN. WE THUS QUOTE SECTION 145A(A)(I) T O AGREE WITH THE LD CIT(A) THAT THE IMPUGNED VALUATION HAS TO BE FINALI ZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASSESSEES REGULAR METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AS EMPLOYED SINCE 1994. NEEDLESS TO SAY, LD. CIT(A) HAS QUOTED VARIOUS JUDICIAL PREC EDENTS AS WELL IN SUPPORT OF HIS ABOVE CONCLUSION. THE REVENUE FAILS TO REBUT APPLICATION THEREOF IN FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. WE ACCORDING LY DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO DISAGREE WITH THE LOWER APPELLATE FINDINGS UNDER CHALLENGE AS EXTRACTED HEREINABOVE. 4. THIS REVENUES APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 20 TH DECEMBER, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (MANISH BORAD) (S.S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 20/12/2016 *BT / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. & / THE APPELLANT 2. '(& / THE RESPONDENT. 3. * / CONCERNED CIT 4. * ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. - ' , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD