High Court dismisses appeal over filing delay & sales addition. No condonation order due to credible explanation. Assessing Officer's addition unjustified.

The High Court dismissed the appeal due to a 150-day delay in filing and the addition of a significant amount on account of sales. Despite the delay, the Court did not interfere, and no order was passed on condonation of delay. Regarding the sales addition, the Court found the explanation provided by the assessee credible, noting that the recovered documents indicated recoverable amounts, not actual receipts. Consequently, the Assessing Officer's addition was deemed unjustified, leading to the rejection of the appeal by the revenue.

---

---

Issues:
1. Delay of 150 days in filing the appeal.
2. Addition of &8377; 1,46,55,94,922/- on account of sales.

Delay of 150 days in filing the appeal:
The High Court heard the senior standing counsel for the Revenue on merits regarding the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal was against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which favored the respondent-Assessee and rejected the appeal by the revenue. Despite the delay, the Court decided not to interfere in the appeal and did not pass any order on the application seeking condonation of delay.

Addition of &8377; 1,46,55,94,922/- on account of sales:
The case involved the recovery of three loose sheets during a survey operation, which contained "broker-wise due as on 12.01.2005". The Assessing Officer added the amount mentioned in the sheets as the income of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2005-06. However, the assessee explained that the amount was not received during that year but was recoverable in subsequent years. The CIT (A) accepted the appeal of the respondent-Assessee, and the Tribunal also rejected the appeal by the revenue. The High Court, after considering the documents recovered during the survey operation, found the explanation provided by the assessee to be plausible. The Court noted that the documents reflected the amount recoverable by the assessee from the brokers as of a specific date and did not indicate actual receipts. The Court concluded that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition on account of sales, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the documents recovered during the survey operation should be interpreted as they exist, and the amount mentioned in the sheets did not represent actual receipts but recoverable amounts. The Court found the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the subsequent receipt of amounts to be credible, leading to the rejection of the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

---