INCOME TAX OFFICER, MURSHIDABAD vs. CHUNAKHALI SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITI LIMITED, MURSHIDABAD

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2018-19 dated 18.09.2023. 1.1
The Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 503 days. The Revenue has filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons that the appeal could not be filed on or before the due date due to huge work load relating to time barring scrutiny assessments, proceedings under section 148A and writs filed by the various assessees on the issue of 148A proceedings and there was a gap
I.T.A. No.: 803/KOL/2025
Assessment Year: 2018-19
Chunakhali Samabay Krishi
Unnayan Samiti Limited.
between the date when the appeal order was passed and the appeal order was downloaded on manual checking. After perusing the same, we are satisfied that the Revenue had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.
2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:
“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting the documents submitted by the assessee during the appellate proceedings without allowing the Assessing Officer to examine the documents and furnish remand report.
2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in considering the source of the increase in long term investment entered in the balance sheet as explained without considering that the source of the investment was not produced before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings and the same remained unverified.
3. That the appellant craves leave to add and/ or alter, amend, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.”
3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee claimed that it is a Primary Agricultural Society registered with the