Appeal partly allowed, stressing factual accuracy & accounting consistency, condoning delay, directing fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal partly allowed the Assessee's appeal, emphasizing correct factual appreciation, consistency in accounting methods, and the necessity for proper verification in tax assessments. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to valid reasons. The addition of Rs. 2.36 crores to the Assessee's income was found to have discrepancies in the AO's approach, leading to a direction for fresh adjudication. The variation in sale prices resulting in an addition of Rs. 1,59,22,968 was also remanded for re-examination, stressing the need for a fresh decision based on specific cases.

---

---

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal and condonation of the delay.
2. Addition of Rs. 2.36 crores upheld by the AO.
3. Variation in sale prices leading to an addition of Rs. 1,59,22,968.

Issue 1: Delay in filing the appeal and condonation of the delay:
The Assessee filed an appeal challenging the order of CIT(A)-21, Mumbai, citing a delay of 299 days due to strained relationships among directors and unavailability of necessary details. The Tribunal, after considering the reasons provided, condoned the delay, noting the unintentional nature of the delay and the circumstances leading to it.

Issue 2: Addition of Rs. 2.36 crores upheld by the AO:
The AO added Rs. 2.36 crores to the Assessee's income, considering advances received against unsold stock exceeding the cost. The FAA upheld this addition, citing unclear liabilities, unrecognised sales, and delayed revenue recognition. The Assessee argued for consistency in accounting methods and disputed the AO's calculation of unrecognized gross profit. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the AO's approach, emphasizing the need for correct appreciation of facts and further verification. The matter was directed back to the FAA for fresh adjudication.

Issue 3: Variation in sale prices leading to an addition of Rs. 1,59,22,968:
The AO estimated suppressed sales of Rs. 1,59,22,968 based on variations in sale prices per sq. ft. The Assessee contested this, highlighting the registration date versus booking date discrepancy and inconsistencies in rate per sq. ft. The FAA, while upholding the addition "in principle," directed the AO to consider specific cases for computing the addition. The Tribunal directed the FAA to re-examine the issue after de novo proceedings, emphasizing the need for a fresh decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the Assessee's appeal, stressing the importance of correct factual appreciation, consistency in accounting methods, and the necessity for proper verification in tax assessments. The matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication, ensuring a fair hearing and accurate consideration of the issues involved.

---