NAMDEO NARAYANRAO MOHITE,PUNE vs. DCIT CIR-12, PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
For AY 2018-19, the AO accepted the assessee's revised stock calculation in remand proceedings, rendering the appeal infructuous. For AY 2020-21, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to re-assess based on the corrected earlier year's stock.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a real estate developer, had issues with the calculation of closing stock impacting multiple assessment years. The Assessing Officer (AO) initially made additions based on incorrect stock valuations.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the correct valuation of closing stock and its consequential impact on the net profit of the assessee for multiple assessment years.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.312 & 313/PUN/2026 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2020-21 & 2018-19 Namdeo Narayanrao Mohite, Vs. DCIT, Circle-12, Pune. S. No.15/1/1, Mohite House, Anand Nagar, Hingane Khurd, Sinhgad Road, Pune- 411051. PAN : ABGPM9983M Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri S. N. Puranikh Revenue by : Shri Manoj Tripathi (Virtual) Date of hearing : 22.04.2026 Date of pronouncement : 18.05.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: Both the above captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 26.11.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2020-21 respectively. ITA No.313/PUN/2026 for A.Y. 2018-19 : 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of real estate builder and developer and has
2 ITA Nos.312 & 313/PUN/2026 furnished his return of income for Asstt Year 2018-19 on 31.10.2018 by declaring an income of Rs.8,49,79,990/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and vide order dated 19.04.2021 assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the IT Act by determining income at Rs.8,51,56,726/- as against the income of Rs.8,49,79,990/- returned by the assessee. 3. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. After considering the reply and submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC vide order dated 26.11.2025 restored the matter back to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to determine the correct closing stock & net profit in the light of claim made by the assessee. 4. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. When the case was called for hearing Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee requested to pass appropriate order since in the remand proceedings the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer has accepted the claim of the assessee and reduced the closing stock as per the calculation of the assessee and consequently also reduced the income as per the calculation of the assessee.
3 ITA Nos.312 & 313/PUN/2026 6. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue raised no objection to the request of the assessee. 7. In this regard, we find that the assessee also furnished a written submission wherein copy of order passed by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer allowing the claim of the assessee is enclosed. Accordingly, we find that no dispute/grievance remains, therefore the appeal becomes infructuous, hence dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.313/PUN/2026 for A.Y. 2018-19 is dismissed. ITA No.312/PUN/2026 for A.Y. 2020-21 : 9. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of real estate builder and developer and has furnished his return of income for Asstt Year 2020-21 on 15-01-2021 by declaring an income of Rs.4,30,79,710/- by claiming refund of Rs.84,160/-. Subsequently, a revised return was filed on 31.03.2021 by declaring an income of Rs.3,07,73,490/- by claiming refund of Rs.57,40,800/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices u/s 143(2), 142(1) and show cause notices respectively were issued to the assessee. In response the assessee submitted that the erroneous calculation of closing stock of
4 ITA Nos.312 & 313/PUN/2026 assessment year 2018-19 also affected the calculation of opening stock / closing stock and net profit for assessment year 2020-21 and therefore the return of income was revised for this year and accordingly the income was reduced and a refund claim was increased. It was also submitted by the assessee that the appeal against the assessment order for assessment year 2018-19 is still pending. Not being satisfied with the contention of the assessee, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 27.09.2022 completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining income at Rs.4,30,79,710/- as against the income of Rs.3,07,73,490/- returned by the assessee. 10. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. After considering the reply and submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC vide order dated 26.11.2025 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by observing the fact that till date the claim of the assessee for assessment year 2018-19 is not allowed by the Assessing Officer. 11. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
5 ITA Nos.312 & 313/PUN/2026 12. We have heard Ld. counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the copy of order dated 12.02.2026 passed by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in remand proceedings for assessment year 2018-19, wherein the claim of the assessee was accepted with regard to erroneous calculation of closing stock which affected the stock and profit of subsequent years including the assessment year 2020-21 which is under consideration before this bench. 13. In this regard, we find that it was the claim of the assessee that due to inadvertent mistake in calculation of stock the closing stock for assessment year 2018-19 was mentioned wrong, which consequently affected subsequent years calculation also including that of assessment year 2020-21. However, subsequently in remand proceedings the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer vide order 12.02.2026 has accepted the claim of the assessee and substituted the correct closing stock for assessment year 2018-19. Accordingly, now it is the claim of the assessee before us that for assessment year 2020-21 the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on the basis of wrong opening and closing stock of assessment year 2020-21 may kindly be deleted since the
6 ITA Nos.312 & 313/PUN/2026 closing stock of assessment year 2018-19 has already been revised by the Assessing Officer which will consequently affect the closing stock of subsequent years. In this regard, the revised order dated 12.02.2026 passed for assessment year 2018-19 is produced before the bench. 14. Learned DR fairly accepted the contention of the assessee, however requested to restore the matter back to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to pass the appropriate order for assessment year 2020-21 in the light of revised assessment order dated 12.02.2026 passed by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for assessment year 2018-19. 15. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and with the consent of both the parties restore the matter back to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer with a direction to pass the assessment order for assessment year 2020-21 afresh and as per fact & law on this limited issue on the basis of closing stock of earlier years. Needless to say the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer shall decide the issue after providing reasonable opportunity of
7 ITA Nos.312 & 313/PUN/2026 hearing to the assessee. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 16. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.312/PUN/2026 for A.Y. 2020-21 is allowed for statistical purposes. 17. To sum up, the appeal in ITA No.313/PUN/2026 for A.Y. 2018-19 is dismissed and the appeal in ITA No.312/PUN/2026 for A.Y. 2020-21 is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 18th day of May, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 18th May, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.05.18 आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 16:54:30 +05'30' अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” ब�च, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.
More judgments on Section 144B
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetanj Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Namita Behera vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026