JITUBHAI SHAMALDAS TOKLE,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(10), BHAVNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2385/AHD/2025Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad13 January 2026AY 2022-23Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh, de novo examination of the closing stock valuation. The AO is directed to verify all relevant documents, including bills, vouchers, opening stock, and purchases, with the assessee mandated to submit all necessary details and comply with notices.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal challenges an addition of Rs. 31,38,096 made under Section 69 for alleged difference in closing stock valuation, which was confirmed by the NFAC. The assessee contended that the valuation issue stemmed from an incorrect auto-updated data upload from Tally and that additional evidence was not admitted by the CIT(A) under Rule 46A.

What were the issues?

The key legal issues revolve around the valuation of closing stock leading to an addition under Section 69 and the non-admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the IT Rules.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Virbhadra Vishalavat, Sr. DR
Hearing: 13.01.2026Pronounced: 13.01.2026

(Assessment Year: 2022-23) Jitubhai Shamaldas Tokle, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Prop. Tokle Timbers, Ward 1(10), Plot No. 89/1, Ferry Road, Bhavnagar Juna Bunder, Bhavnagar-364 001 [PAN : ACSPT 8928 Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant represented by : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate Respondent represented by: Shri Virbhadra Vishalavat, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 13.01.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘Ld. CIT (A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2022-23

2.

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :- “(1) That on facts, and in law, the learned NFAC has grievously erred in not admitting the additional evidence in terms of Rule 46A of the IT Rules.

(2) That on facts, and in law, the learned NEAC has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs.31,38,096/- made u/s 69 of the Act in respect of alleged difference in valuation of closing stock, while accepting the fact that there is no difference in quantity of closing stock.

(3) That ALTERNATIVELY, and without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, the value adopted as closing stock ought to be directed to be taken as opening stock of the next assessment year..”

3. The only issue that needs to be adjudicated is the valuation of the closing stock. The assessee submitted a reconciliation before the Ld. CIT(A), which was not accepted. In this regard, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had, by mistake, uploaded auto- updated data from Tally, which was incorrect.

4.

Considering the arguments of both sides and in the interest of justice, the matter is remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the valuation of closing stock after verifying the bills and vouchers and after taking into consideration the opening stock, purchases made during the year, and other relevant records, and thereafter to pass an order de novo. The assessee shall submit all relevant details, statements, submissions, and supporting documents before the Assessing Officer and shall comply with the notices issued by the revenue authorities without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →