Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY
order
: May 8th, 2024 ORDER
Per Manish Borad, Accountant Member:
This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2021-22 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [in I.T.A. No.: 201/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Mogulkata Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. short ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 26.07.2023 which is arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 01.07.2022.
Registry has informed that the appeal is time barred by 130 days. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeals. After perusing the same, we find force in the reasons mentioned therein and are satisfied that the assessee was prevented for reasonable cause in filing the instant appeal within statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the action of the CIT(A) in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.2,70,188/- on account of deemed income u/s 41 is contrary to the material evidences on record and the addition made is bad in law.
2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the action of the CIT(A) to uphold the action of the Assessing Officer to make an addition/adjustment of Rs.2,70,188/- in the order passed u/s 143(1) is erroneous, arbitrary and excessive and bad in law.
3. That the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) is arbitrary, excessive and illegal.
4. That the above grounds of appeal shall be argued in detail at the time of hearing and the appellant craves leave to submit, add, alter, modify, amend any grounds of appeal or submit any additional grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”
4. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the alleged addition is a double addition as the assessee has already offered the alleged sum to income and is duly reflected in its audited financial statement.