MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ CO. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

The ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay when there was delay at all as the assessment order was served on the assessee on 07-08-2023 and due date for filing of appeal was 15-09- 2023 prior to which the assessee filed appeal on 25-08- 2023. The ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) held that the assessment order was issued on 30-03-2023 and hence actual due date of filing of appeal was 01-05-2023. The CIT(A) has wrongly calculated delay that of 115 days. The ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) has totally ignored the assessee’s contentions and without deciding anything on record has dismissed the appeal only on the ground of delay.

The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee was served assessment order on 07- 08-2023 and merely issuing the order on 30-03-2023 will not start the due date of filing of appeal, but the calculation of the due date for filing of appeal which was done by the assessee seems to be plausible. Hence, the CIT(A) was not right in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay. The & 110/Ahd/2025 Madhya Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., A.Y. 2017-18 & 2021-22 CIT(A) has not at all considered the appeal on merit and therefore it will be proper to remand back the matter to the file of CIT(A) for proper verification and adjudication of the issues on merit and as per Income Tax Act. The assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. the assessee company filed return of income on 12-03-2022 declaring total income at Rs. nil after set of brought forward losses. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 22-09- 2022 and total income of Rs. 2,87,42,32,799/-. The case was selected for scrutiny for assessment year 2021-22 after taking cognizance of the details filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,61,31,26,000/- in respect of variation of subsidy/grant and addition of Rs. 20,79,52,000/- as against variation in income from other sources.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.

The ld. A.R. has challenged the addition of 15% on account of capital grants in subsidy and consumer contribution transferred to profit and loss account during & 110/Ahd/2025 Madhya Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., A.Y. 2017-18 & 2021-22 the year as against 5.28% offered by the assessee in respect of addition on account of income from other sources.

The ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) ignored that fact that the Assessing Officer wrongly considered the return of income at Rs. 2,87,42,32,799/- making additions on account of contingent liability amounting to Rs. 2,56,57,44,365/-, provision for gratuity amounting to Rs. 30,14,35,050/- and provision for bonus amounting to Rs. 70,53,384/-. The CIT(A) dismissed these grounds thereby stating that this issue was not arisen out of the impugned order. The assessee has categorically taken this ground because the interest income amounting to Rs. 2,62,08,000/- treating the same as income from other sources and the facts of the present assessment order were totally different from that of earlier assessment years where similar additions were made and this difference was not taken into account by the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A).

The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

We have heard both the parties and perused the all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has given a bifurcation of the return of income but whether the same is related to the difference in respect of income from other sources or not has not been discussed by the CIT(A) in the order dated 01-11-2024.

In the result, the appeal being for assessment year 2020-21 of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.