Tribunal partially allows appeal, remands issues to Assessing Officer. Appeal against Commissioner's decision dismissed.

The appeal was partly allowed by the Tribunal, remitting certain issues for re-evaluation by the Assessing Officer. The appeal against the Order giving effect to the Commissioner's decision was dismissed as infructuous.

---

---

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Assessment of income from real estate for A.Y. 2003-2004.
3. Order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. Valuation of land at Gurramguda and Badangipet.
5. Treatment of advances received.
6. Valuation of closing stock.

Issue 1: Delay in filing the appeal:
The appeal filed by the assessee was found to be time-barred by 286 days. The delay was attributed to inadvertence, and the learned D.R. objected to the reasons provided for condonation of delay. However, considering that the Order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act directed the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment, the delay was condoned.

Issue 2: Assessment of income from real estate for A.Y. 2003-2004:
The assessee, an individual deriving income from real estate, filed returns admitting varying incomes. The Assessing Officer conducted a survey and issued notices, eventually determining the total income. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Income Tax set aside the assessment under section 263, directing a re-assessment.

Issue 3: Order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad, set aside the assessment directing a re-assessment due to perceived discrepancies. The Commissioner highlighted issues related to the sale consideration of land, understated closing stock, and unexamined liabilities like net advances and unsecured loans.

Issue 4: Valuation of land at Gurramguda and Badangipet:
The appeal challenged the valuation of land at Gurramguda and Badangipet, disputing the assumed sale price of Rs.250 per sq. yard. The absence of documentary evidence supporting the valuation and failure to examine purchasers were key contentions, leading to a remittal for re-evaluation by the Assessing Officer.

Issue 5: Treatment of advances received:
Regarding advances received, the assessee argued that the amounts were accounted for in subsequent years upon land sales, thus contesting their immediate inclusion as income. The Assessing Officer's treatment was deemed unjustified.

Issue 6: Valuation of closing stock:
The dispute over the valuation of closing stock centered on the timing of development costs and the consideration of expenses up to a specific date. The contention was that only costs incurred up to 31.3.2003 should be included, leading to a disagreement with the Commissioner's valuation, resulting in a deletion of the assessed difference.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal concerning the valuation of land and closing stock, remitting certain issues for re-evaluation by the Assessing Officer. The appeal against the Order giving effect to the Commissioner's decision was dismissed as infructuous.

---