M/S. BUHARI HOLDING PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-1(1), CHENNAI

आदेश/ O R D E R

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

2 -: 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 152 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee filed affidavit seeking condonation of delay on the ground that delay had occurred for the reason that assessee company on receipt of consequential order to the CIT(A)’s order dated 12.08.2025, approached the counsel Shri G. Baskar, Advocate to challenge the consequential order. However, he opined that appeal should be filed against the order passed by the CIT(A). Based on his advice, appeal was filed with a delay of 650 days. Thus, the sum and substance of the explanation of assessee is that the necessity of filing of appeal was realized only on the advice given by the counsel Shri G. Baskar. Therefore, it is prayed that since the delay is neither willful nor wanton but due to the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee, the delay in filing the present appeal be condoned.

1. The CIT(A) having rightly directed the AO to pass a rectification order, he ought not have directed the Ao to make the rectification subject to fulfilment of the conditions laid down in Chapter-XII-G 2 The CIT(A) went wrong in directing the AO to look into the conditions laid down in Chapter-XII-G of the Tonnage Scheme, which is beyond the scope of 143(1) of the Act which only empowers the AO to make adjustments of arithmetical errors and mistakes apparent in the ROL

3. The CIT(A) failed to note that additions and disallowances u/s 143(1)(a) cannot be made on debatable issues, which can be done only in an assessment. 4 The eligibility and renewal of the Appellant under the Tonnage tax scheme having been decided by the CIT(A) vide order dated 01.09.2016, and a giving effect order was passed by the JCIT vide order dated 09.12.2016; the CIT(A) ought not to have directed the AO to once again verify eligibility of the assessee to the Tonnage Tax scheme.

5. The CIT(A) erred in not following Judicial discipline when the Hon'ble ITAT has allowed applicability of the Tonnage Tax scheme for the preceding years in the Appellants' own case.

6. Any other grounds that may be raised at the time of hearing 5 -: 8. Before us, it is submitted that in assessee’s own case in earlier year, the Tribunal had upheld the eligibility of assessee company for the applicability of Tonnage Tax Scheme. Therefore, the CIT(A) ought not have directed the AO to pass consequential order giving the benefit of Tonnage tax scheme subject to fulfillment of conditions laid down in Chapter XII-G of the Act. It is further submitted before us that adjustment envisaged under the provisions of section 143(1) of the Act cannot be made on debatable issues.

9. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find from the impugned order that the CIT(A) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act by directing the AO to carry out verification of eligibility of assessee for the benefit of Tonnage tax scheme. Undisputedly, the 6 -: assessee had failed to show shipping income in the relevant column of the return of income filed by the assessee. Consequently, the CPC made a prima facie adjustment by making addition of shipping income without giving the benefit of Tonnage Tax Scheme. In these circumstances, the CIT(A) set aside the claim of the assessee to the file of the AO/CPC on being satisfied with the eligibility conditions after due verification. If the assessee is aggrieved by the consequential order passed to the order of the CIT(A), a separate appeal lies before the CIT(A) and it cannot be directly agitated before this Tribunal. The grievance sought to be raised in the present appeal does not emanate from the order of the CIT(A) nor form part of the subject matter of appeal before CIT(A). Therefore, we do not find any merit in the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee.

Order pronounced in the open court on 5th February, 2026 at Chennai.