SUBRATO SAHA,DARJEELING vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

ITA 1756/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 September 2026AY 2018-20198 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the obsolescence of stock is a normal business phenomenon and the assessee had provided details of the written-off stock. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's return for the current year was filed within the due date, and the auditor had certified the accounts.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a proprietor of a printing and processing business, wrote off obsolete stock amounting to ₹1,09,98,626/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this claim, arguing the assessee couldn't reduce closing stock and had issues with carrying forward losses due to belated ITR filings for earlier years.

What were the issues?

Whether the write-off of obsolete stock is a valid business expenditure, and if the assessee is entitled to claim the loss despite issues with carry-forward of losses from earlier assessment years due to belated filings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury &
For Respondent: Shri Praveen Das Chowdhury
Hearing: 24.08.2026Pronounced: 16.09.2026

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 04.03.2026 for the AY 2018-19. 2. The only issue raised by the assessee in the various grounds of appeal is against the confirmation of addition of ₹1,09,98,626/- as made by the ld. AO on account of depleted or obsolete stock pertaining to the period of 2004 to 2017. 3. The facts in brief are that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under e-assessment scheme 2019 Subrato Saha; A.Y. 2018-19 for examination of business loss. The case was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason of la

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →