Appeal dismissed for failure to file retraction application and meet procedural requirements.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, rejecting the exclusion of additional income from total income due to failure to file a retraction application, satisfaction of the assessing officer regarding cash availability not raised in initial appeal, restriction of depreciation claim not raised before CIT(A), and denial of condonation for late appeal filing and admission of new grounds. The decision underscored adherence to procedural requirements and timely filing of appeals.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Exclusion of additional income of Rs. 5,83,25,000/- from total income.
2. Satisfaction of the assessing officer regarding the availability of cash.
3. Restriction of depreciation claim.
4. Application for condonation of delay and admission of new/additional grounds of appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Exclusion of Additional Income of Rs. 5,83,25,000/- from Total Income:
The assessee argued that the additional income of Rs. 5,83,25,000/- accepted during the course of the survey and offered for tax in the return of income should be excluded from the total income. The reason given was that no corresponding entry for the same was passed in the books of accounts of the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had declared this income in the return and the assessing officer had accepted it, making only two minor additions. The Tribunal held that the assessee could not retract or revise its returned income without filing a retraction application and revised return of income within the prescribed time limit. Thus, this ground was not admitted.

2. Satisfaction of the Assessing Officer Regarding the Availability of Cash:
The assessee contended that the additional income should be excluded since the assessing officer was satisfied with the availability of cash in the regular books of accounts of the appellant before its deposit in the bank account. The Tribunal observed that the assessing officer had accepted the returned income and made only two additions, indicating satisfaction with the cash availability. However, since the issue was not raised before the CIT(A) or in the initial appeal, it could not be admitted as a new ground at this stage.

3. Restriction of Depreciation Claim:
The assessee challenged the restriction of the depreciation claim to Rs. 2,05,69,740/- instead of the allowable Rs. 2,62,09,454/-. The Tribunal found that this issue was not raised before the CIT(A) and was being brought up for the first time in the appeal to the Tribunal. Since the issue was neither discernible from the assessment order nor the first appellate order, and the assessee had not agitated this before the CIT(A), the Tribunal declined to admit this ground.

4. Application for Condonation of Delay and Admission of New/Additional Grounds of Appeal:
The assessee filed the appeal late by 156 days and sought condonation of the delay, attributing it to advice received during another appeal. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. vs Mst. Katiji & Ors, held that the reason provided was insufficient and implausible. Consequently, the delay was not condoned. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the new/additional grounds were not raised before the CIT(A) and were not part of the assessment or first appellate orders. Hence, they could not be admitted for hearing or be restored to the assessing officer for verification and adjudication.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine, rejecting the application for condonation of delay and the admission of new/additional grounds. The decision emphasized the procedural requirements for raising issues and the necessity of adhering to prescribed timelines for filing appeals.

---