http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1625 of 2008

PETITIONER: Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

RESPONDENT: M/s Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/02/2008

BENCH: S. H. Kapadia & B. Sudershan Reddy

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1625               OF 2008 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 9801/07) With Civil Appeal No.   1626      /08 arising out of SLP(C) No. 9804/07, Civil Appeal No.   1627      /08 arising out of SLP(C) No. 9818/07, Civil Appeal No.   1628      /08 arising out of SLP(C) No. 14048/07, Civil Appeal No.   1629      /08 arising out of SLP(C) No. 14522/07, Civil Appeal No.   1630      /08 arising out of SLP(C) No. 14579/07, Civil Appeal No.   1631      /08 arising out of SLP(C) No. 14046/07 and Civil Appeal No.   1632      /08 arising out of SLP(C) No. 21572/07.

KAPADIA, J.

       Leave granted.

2.      This batch of civil appeals filed by the Department is directed against  judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated 19.6.2006  in which it has been held that in the matter of chit transaction, the Completed  Contract Method of accounting adopted by the respondents-assessees was  erroneously rejected by the Department and that the Tribunal had erred in  directing the discount to be spread over the balance period of the chit on a  proportionate basis. In other words, the controversy arising in the present  appeals is whether the Completed Contract Method followed by the  assessees and accepted by the Revenue in the past needed to be substituted  by percentage of Completion Method as contended by the AO.

3.      We are concerned with assessment years 1991-1992 to 1997-1998.   

4.      Assessees are private limited companies subscribing to chits as their  business activities. They were maintaining their accounts on mercantile basis  and they were computing profit/loss, as the case may be, at the end of the  chit period following completed contract method, which was earlier  accepted by the Department over several years.

5.      Chit funds are basically saving schemes in which certain number of  subscribers join together and each contributes a certain fixed sum each  month, the total number of months being equal to the total number of  subscribers. The subscriptions are paid to the Manager of the fund by a  certain prescribed date each month and the total subscriptions to the fund are  auctioned each month amongst the subscribers. At each auction, the lowest  bidder is paid the amount of his bid and the balance received from out of the  total subscriptions received is distributed equally amongst other subscribers,  as premium. The Manager is paid a certain percentage of the collections  each month on account of expenses and charges for conducting the auction.  In the auction, a maximum amount, which the highest bidder agrees to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

forego, is the amount, which is distributed to the other members, subject to  deduction of the Manager’s commission.

6.      In this case, we are concerned with the tax treatment of the difference  between the amount contributed and the amount received. In other words, in  this case, we are concerned with allowability of the claim for discount under  the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("1961 Act") in order to arrive at "income" under  that Act.

7.      As stated hereinabove, assessees herein have been following  completed contract method over the years, which was accepted by the  Department. However, for the assessment years under consideration, the AO  came to the conclusion that the completed contract method was not accurate  in recognizing/identifying "income" under the 1961 Act, and according to  him, therefore, in the context of the "chit discount", the correct method was  deferred revenue expenditure calculated on proportionate basis. In other  words, the AO has preferred percentage of completion method as the basis  for recognizing/identifying "income" under the 1961 Act in substitution of  completed contract method. 8.      According to the Department, chit dividend had to be subjected to tax  on accrual basis as the assessees were following the mercantile system of  accounting. According to the Department, income accrued to the assessees  in the form of chit dividend during the year whereas liability arose in the  form of chit discount over the relevant period depending upon the remaining  number of instalments to be paid.  

9.      As far as the chit dividend is concerned, the Department rejected the  completed contract method as suggested by the assessees, which has been  accepted by the Tribunal and the High Court. However, in the matter of chit  discount, the High Court, overruling the Tribunal, has held that the  completed contract method of accounting adopted by the assessees was valid  and that the Department had erred in spreading the discount over the  remaining period of the chit on proportionate basis.

10.     In the matter of chit dividend,  assessees have accepted the view of the  Tribunal and the High Court that the completed contract method was not  correct. Therefore, to that extent, the controversy is settled.  

11.     The limited controversy is whether the completed contract method of  accounting adopted by the assessees as method of accounting for chit  discount is required to be substituted by percentage of completion method.

12.     In this connection, it is the case of the assessees that, profits (loss)  accrued to the assessees only when the dividends exceeded the discount paid  and that difference could be known only on the termination of the chit when  the total figure of dividend received and discount paid would be available.  That, it would be possible for the assessees to make profits only when the  sum total of the dividend received exceeded the sum total of discounts  suffered which is debited to P & L account. According to the assessees, the  Department has all along been accepting the completed contract method and,  therefore, there was no justification in law or in facts for deviating from the  accepted practice. According to the assessees, a chit transaction has been  treated by the various courts as one single scheme running for the full period  and, therefore, according to the assessees, the completed contract method  adopted by it over the years was not required to be substituted by any other  method of accounting.

                13.     Before us, Shri Parag P. Tripathi, learned Additional Solicitor  General, relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of  Taparia Tools Ltd.  v.  Joint Commissioner of Income-tax reported in  [2003] 260 ITR 102 in which the matching principle has been discussed  threadbare. We quote hereinbelow the said concept from the judgment,  which reads as follows: "The mercantile system of accounting is based on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

accrual. Basically, it is a Double Entry System of  accounting. Under the mercantile system of accounting,  profits arising or accruing at the date of the transaction  are liable to be taxed notwithstanding the fact that they  are not actually received or deemed to be received under  the Act. Under the mercantile system of accounting,  therefore, book profits are liable to be taxed. The profits  earned and credited in the books of account constitute the  basis of computation of income. The system postulates  the existence of tax insofar as monies due and payable by  the parties to whom they are debited (see Keshav Mills  Ltd. v. CIT [1953] 23 ITR 230, 239 (SC) ). Therefore,  under the Mercantile System of Accounting, in order to  determine the net income of an accounting year, the  revenue and other incomes are matched with the cost of  resources consumed [expenses]. Under the mercantile  system of accounting, this matching is required to be  done on accrual basis. Under this matching concept,  revenue and income earned during an accounting period,  irrespective of actual cash in-flow, is required to be  compared with expenses incurred during the same period,  irrespective of actual out-flow of cash. In this case, the  assessee is following mercantile system of accounting.  This matching concept is very relevant to compute  taxable income particularly in cases involving DRE. It  has been recognised by numerous judgments. In the case  of Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 1 (SC) the  facts were as follows: The assessee bought lands and sold  them in plots. When the plots were sold the purchasers  paid only a portion of the purchase price and undertook  to pay the balance in instalments. The assessee, in turn,  agreed to develop the plots within six months. In the  relevant Accounting Year, the assessee actually received  only Rs. 29,392 towards sale price of the lands, but, in  accordance with the mercantile system of accounting  followed by the assessee, it credited in its accounts Rs.  43,692 representing the full sale price of the lands. At the  same time, it also debited Rs. 24,809 as expenditure for  the development it had undertaken even though, no part  of that amount was actually spent. The Department,  therefore, disallowed the expenditure of Rs. 24,809 on  the ground that the amount was not actually spent. The  assessee ultimately succeeded in the Supreme Court. It  was held by the Supreme Court that the expression  "Profits or Gains" in Section 10(1) of the Income-tax  Act, 1922 should be understood in its commercial sense  and there can be no computation of such profits and gains  until the expenditure, which is necessary for the purposes  of earning the receipts is deducted therefrom.  Accordingly, the Supreme Court took the view, that since  the assessee was following Mercantile System of  Accounting and since the assessee had credited the full  sale price of lands in its accounts amounting to Rs.  43,692, the assessee was entitled to estimate the  expenditure because, without such estimation of  expenditure, it was not possible to compute profits and  gains. This concept is also applied by the Supreme Court  in the case of Madras Industrial investment Corporation  Ltd. [1997] 225 ITR 802 under following observations  (headnote): "Ordinarily, revenue expenditure which is  incurred wholly and exclusively for the  purpose of business must be allowed in its  entirety in the year in which it is incurred. It  cannot be spread over a number of years

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

even if the assessee has written it off in his  books, over a period of years. However, the  facts may justify an assessee who has  incurred expenditure in a particular year to  spread and claim it over a period of ensuing  years. In fact, allowing the entire  expenditure in one year might give a very  distorted picture of the profits of a particular  year. Issuing debentures is an instance  where, although the assessee has incurred  the liability to pay the discount in the year of  issue of debentures, the payment is to secure  a benefit over a number of years. There is a  continuing benefit to the business of the  company over the entire period. The liability  should, therefore, be spread over the period  of the debentures."  Therefore, the matching concept, which we have referred  to is well recognised by various judgments of the  Supreme Court. In this case, the issue is whether the  entire expenditure distorts the profits of a particular  year."

14.     Further, learned ASG has also placed reliance on the judgment of this  Court in the case of J.K. Industries Ltd. & Anr.  v.  Union of India &  Ors. reported in 2007 (13) SCALE 204. Paragraphs 82 and 83 of the said  judgment are reproduced hereinbelow:

"82.    Matching Concept is based on the accounting  period concept. The paramount object of running a  business is to earn profit. In order to ascertain the profit  made by the business during a period, it is necessary that  "revenues" of the period should be matched with the  costs (expenses) of that period. In other words, income  made by the business during a period can be measured  only with the revenue earned during a period is compared  with the expenditure incurred for earning that revenue.  However, in cases of mergers and acquisitions,  companies sometimes undertake to defer revenue  expenditure over future years which brings in the concept  of Deferred Tax Accounting. Therefore, today it cannot  be said that the concept of accrual is limited to one year.  

83.     It is a principle of recognizing costs (expenses)  against revenues or against the relevant time period in  order to determine the periodic income. This principle is  an important component  of accrual basis of accounting.  As stated above, the object of AS 22 is to reconcile the  matching principle with the Fair Valuation Principles. It  may be noted that recognition, measurement and  disclosure of various items of income, expenses, assets  and liabilities is done only by Accounting Standards and  not by provisions of the Companies Act."

15.     Recognition/identification of income under the 1961 Act is attainable  by several methods of accounting. It may be noted that the same result could  be attained by any one of the accounting methods. Completed contract  method is one such method. Similarly, percentage of completion method is  another such method.  

16.     Under completed contract method, the revenue is not recognised until  the contract is complete. Under the said method, costs are accumulated  during the course of the contract. The profit and loss is established in the last

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

accounting period and transferred to P & L account. The said method  determines results only when contract is completed. This method leads to  objective assessment of the results of the contract.

17.     On the other hand, percentage of completion method tries to attain  periodic recognition of income in order to reflect current performance. The  amount of revenue recognised under this method is determined by reference  to the stage of completion of the contract. The stage of completion can be  looked at under this method by taking into consideration the proportion that  costs incurred to date bears to the estimated total costs of contract.

18.     The above indicates the difference between completed contract  method and percentage of completion method.

19.     In the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Taparia Tools Ltd.  (supra) it has been held that in every case of substitution of one method by  another method, the burden is on the Department to prove that the method in  vogue is not correct and it distorts the profits of a particular year. Under the  mercantile system of accounting based on the concept of accrual, the method  of accounting followed by the assessees is relevant. In the present case, there  is no finding recorded by the AO that the completed contract method distorts  the profits of a particular year. Moreover, as held in various judgments, the  Chit Scheme is one integrated scheme spread over a period of time,  sometimes exceeding 12 months. We have examined computation of tax  effect in these cases and we find that the entire exercise is revenue neutral,  particularly when the scheme is read as one integrated scheme spread over a  period of time.

20.     As stated above, we are concerned with assessment years 1991-1992  to 1997-1998. In the past, the Department had accepted the completed  contract method and because of such acceptance, the assessees, in these  cases, have followed the same method of accounting, particularly in the  context of chit discount. Every assessee is entitled to arrange its affairs and  follow the method of accounting, which the Department has earlier accepted.  It is only in those cases where the Department records a finding that the  method adopted by the assessee results in distortion of profits, the  Department can insist on substitution of the existing method. Further, in the  present cases, we find from the various statements produced before us, that  the entire exercise, arising out of change of method from completed contract  method to deferred revenue expenditure, is revenue neutral. Therefore, we  do not wish to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court.

21.     Before concluding, we may point out that under section 211(2) of the  Companies Act, Accounting Standards ("AS") enacted by the Institute of  Chartered Accountants have now been adopted [see: judgment of this Court  in J.K. Industries case (supra)].  Shri Tripathi, learned counsel for the  Department, has placed reliance on AS 22 as the basis of his argument that  the completed contract method should be substituted by deferred revenue  expenditure (spreading the said expenditure on proportionate basis over a  period of time). He also relied upon the concept of timing difference  introduced by AS 22. It may be stated that all these developments are of  recent origin. It is open to the Department to consider these new accounting  standards and concepts in future cases of chit transactions. We express no  opinion in that regard. Suffice it to state that, these new concepts and  accounting standards have not been invoked by the Department in the  present batch of civil appeals.

22.     Subject to above, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned  judgment of the High Court and accordingly the civil appeals are dismissed  with no order as to costs.