THE CENTRAL COOPERATIVE WELFARE SOCIETY LIMITED,PORT BLAIR vs. ITO, WARD 3(4), , PORT BLAIR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee's contention regarding the actual reduction in valuation for the relevant financial year was meritorious. It was noted that the assessee society had already provided for a reduction of Rs.99,10,235/- in the value of old/damaged stock up to 31.03.2014. Therefore, the reduction in the valuation of closing stock debited in the accounts for FY 2014-15 was Rs.26,88,599/-, not Rs.1,25,98,834/- as quantified by the AO. Regarding the basis of valuation, the Tribunal found that the assessee demonstrated a scientific and reasonable manner. The Director of Societies supervised stock exercises, identified damaged stock, and estimated net realizable value with auditor approval. The Tribunal concluded that the valuation method was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. Furthermore, the AO had not invoked Section 145(3) to reject the audited books of accounts. Consequently, the addition of Rs.1,25,98,834/- on account of closing stock valuation was held to be unjustified and directed to be deleted. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 were dismissed as not pressed.
What were the facts?
The assessee, The Central Cooperative Welfare Society Limited, Port Blair, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2015-16 on 08.10.2015, declaring a total income of Rs.2,34,360/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the assessee had revalued damaged stocks with a market value of Rs.1,28,78,973/- to Rs.2,80,134/-. The AO added back Rs.1,25,98,834/- to the assessee's income, considering it a reduction in stock value that should not be allowed. The assessee's response was deemed insufficient by the AO. The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC), confirmed the addition. The assessee appealed this order to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
What were the issues?
1. Whether the addition of Rs.1,25,98,834/- on account of revaluation of closing stock is justified, turning on the provisions of Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that it deals in hardware items and due to age, moisture, and erosion, stocks in remote locations get damaged. A stock verification exercise, supervised by the Director of Societies and certified by a Chartered Accountant, is conducted annually. Old/damaged stocks with a retail price of Rs.1,28,78,973/- were revalued. The opening value as on 01.04.2014 was already reduced by Rs.99,10,235/-. The further valuation loss of Rs.26,88,599/- during the relevant FY 2014-15 was due to revising the realizable value estimation from 10% to 5% of MRP. Thus, the impact on profitability was Rs.26,88,599/-, not Rs.1,25,98,834/-. The method of valuation was claimed to be scientific and reasonable. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the assessee had not provided any scientific basis for estimating the realizable value and supported the findings of the lower authorities.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM
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 03.03.2025 for the AY 2015-16.
The issue raised in Ground No. 1 is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.1,25,98,834/- by the ld. CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO in respect of revaluation of closing stock.
2.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 08.10.2015, declaring total income at Rs.2,34,360/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) along with 2.2. The ld. CIT (A) confirmed the addition in the appellate proceedings.
2.3. The ld. AR stated that the assessee is a society dealing in hardware items and serving the remote parts of Andaman & Nicobar Islands. He submitted that, due to efflux of time, moisture and erosion, the hardware items stored in the remote locations are damaged and are rendered defective. He brought to our notice that each year, a stock verification exercise is conducted under the supervision of the Director of Societies and a statement is drawn up which contains the details of physical quantities along with their retail selling rates and the expected realizable value. He then invited our attention to the stock valuation exercise undertaken upon such stock verification which is also certified by the Chartered Accountant. He pointed out that, there were very old / damaged stocks lying in several locations whose retail price was Rs.1,28,78,973/-. It was shown to us that the stocks were continuously revalued downwards over the years and it was submitted that until FY 2013-14, the reduction in the value of such damaged stock was Rs.99,10,325/-. The ld. AR accordingly submitted that the opening value of stock as on 01.04.2014 was already lower 2.4. Per contra, the ld. DR appearing for the Revenue vehemently supported the findings of the lower authorities. He argued that the assessee had not provided any scientific basis for estimation of realizable value and thus wanted us to uphold the addition.
2.5. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, it is seen that, the assessee society which is dealing in hardware items would conduct stock verification exercise at the year end and thereafter quantify the old / damaged stock and estimate their realizable value. The stock verification statement for the immediately preceding year read along with the TAR of AY 2014-15 reveals that, the assessee Society had already provided for reduction in value of old / damaged stock of Rs.99,10,235/- upto 31.03.2014. We thus find merit in the ld. AR’s contention that the reduction in valuation of closing stock debited in the accounts for the relevant FY 2014-15 was Rs.26,88,599/- and not Rs.1,25,98,834/- as quantified by the ld. AO. In so far as the basis of valuation is concerned, as noted earlier, the assessee has demonstrated that the valuation was undertaken in a scientific and reasonable manner in terms of which, the Director of Societies would supervise the physical stock exercise undertaken by the branch heads at the respective locations, identify the old damaged stock and thereafter estimate the net realizable value with the approval of the auditor. According to us, it cannot be said that the method and manner of valuation adopted by the assessee was arbitrary or unreasonable. It is also not a case that the ld. AO had invoked Section 145(3) and rejected the audited books of accounts and in that view of the matter, the valuation of closing stock as undertaken by the assessee society could not have been interfered with. Hence, the addition of Rs.1,25,98,834/- on account of valuation of closing stock is held to be unjustified and the ld. AO is directed to delete the same. This ground is accordingly allowed.
The issue raised in Ground Nos. 2 and 3 is not pressed at the time of hearing and therefore, Ground Nos.2 & 3 are dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10.02.2026.
More judgments on Section 145
- Shobha Sudamrao Tagad, Ahmednagar vs ITO WD-1, AhmednagarITA 311/PUN/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- ACIT, Circle-49(1), New Delhi vs Kuldeep Chhabra, New DelhiITA 6507/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- ACIT, Circle-49(1), New Delhi vs Kuldeep Chhabra, New DelhiITA 6506/DEL/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Mintu Lal, Ranchi vs Assessing Officer, RanchiITA 140/RAN/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Ontic Finserve Limited, Ahmedabad vs ITO Ward -3(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 1924/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026