Tribunal grants relief to assessee, corrects tax calculations, and dismisses certain disallowances.

The Tribunal partly allowed both appeals by the assessee. It condoned the delay in filing the appeal, deleted the disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii), and directed the exclusion of wrongly included income upon verification. Additionally, it reversed the addition related to the valuation of closing stock, ensuring the correct taxable income is reflected. The grounds related to disallowance under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act and commission expenditure were dismissed as not pressed by the appellant.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Disallowance of interest on account of interest-free funds advanced to sister concerns.
3. Disallowance under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act.
4. Disallowance of commission expenditure.
5. Exclusion of income wrongly included in sales.
6. Addition on account of difference in valuation of closing stock.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The appellant requested condonation of a 393-day delay in filing the appeal, attributing the delay to an error by an Accounts Assistant. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, condoned the delay, emphasizing that the delay was not deliberate and that substantial justice should be prioritized.

2. Disallowance of Interest on Account of Interest-Free Funds Advanced to Sister Concerns:
The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 3,65,22,941/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, reasoning that interest-bearing funds were diverted for interest-free loans to sister concerns. The Tribunal found that the appellant had sufficient interest-free funds amounting to Rs. 55,08,18,101/- against the interest-free loans of Rs. 24,34,86,276/-. Citing precedents from the Allahabad High Court (CIT vs. Prem Heavy Engg. Works (P.) Ltd.) and the Supreme Court (South Indian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT), the Tribunal directed the deletion of the disallowance, concluding that the interest-free loans were presumed to be made from interest-free funds.

3. Disallowance under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act:
The appellant did not press this ground during the hearing, and thus, it was dismissed as not pressed.

4. Disallowance of Commission Expenditure:
Similarly, the appellant did not press this ground during the hearing, leading to its dismissal as not pressed.

5. Exclusion of Income Wrongly Included in Sales:
The appellant sought to exclude Rs. 42,38,000/- from its income, arguing it was wrongly included as sales and actually belonged to Ms. Kruti Jain. The Tribunal admitted this additional ground, remanding the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification. If verified that the income was indeed taxed in the hands of Ms. Kruti Jain and did not accrue to the appellant, the amount should be excluded from the appellant's income.

6. Addition on Account of Difference in Valuation of Closing Stock:
For the assessment year 2013-14, the Assessing Officer added Rs. 16,60,06,720/- to the appellant's income due to a negative balance in work-in-progress. The Tribunal found that the advance for land should not be included in the inventory until the purchase materializes. The Tribunal reversed the lower authorities' findings, directing the deletion of the addition, emphasizing that altering the closing stock valuation alone without corresponding adjustments distorts the taxable income.

Conclusion:
Both appeals by the assessee were partly allowed. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, deleted the disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii), and directed the exclusion of wrongly included income upon verification. It also reversed the addition related to the valuation of closing stock, ensuring that the correct taxable income is reflected.

---