2023 (3) TMI 1002 - AT - Income Tax

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, ... Condonation of delay - onus to explain delay by sufficient and plausible cause - admission of additional grounds of appeal - maintainability of appeal where no grievance remains from lower authority - Tribunal's power to admit additional grounds only where they can be adjudicated on existing record - retraction or revision of return where assessee seeks to withdraw declared incomeCondonation of delay - onus to explain delay by sufficient and plausible cause - Whether delay of 156 days in filing the appeal should be condoned. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that the explanation given - advice by tax consultant/advocate arising in another appeal - did not constitute a sufficient and plausible cause to justify the 156 days' delay. Reliance was placed on the settled principle that the onus is on the appellant to demonstrate adequate cause for delay. The reason given in the affidavit was also found factually imprecise and unrelated to the present appeal, and therefore implausible. Accordingly, condonation of delay was declined. [Paras 11]Application for condonation of delay is dismissed.Admission of additional grounds of appeal - Tribunal's power to admit additional grounds only where they can be adjudicated on existing record - maintainability of appeal where no grievance remains from lower authority - Whether the assessee's new/additional grounds (grounds No.1 to 4) should be admitted and the matter restored to the file of the AO for adjudication. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found that the only grievance before the CIT(A) had been the addition of a specified amount which was allowed, leaving no unresolved grievance from the appellate order. The assessee sought to raise grounds that were neither discernible from the assessment order nor agitated before the CIT(A), and sought restoration for fresh examination which, by the assessee's own prayer, required verification beyond the existing record. The Tribunal applied the principle that additional grounds may be admitted only if they can be decided on the material already on record; where restoration for fresh enquiry is sought, admission is inappropriate. Further, the Tribunal observed that the assessee could not, by way of additional grounds, seek to retract declared income without following statutory procedures for retraction/revision of return. Consequently, the additional grounds were not admitted. [Paras 12, 13, 14]Application to admit new/additional grounds No.1 to 4 and to restore the matter to the file of the AO is dismissed.Maintainability of appeal - Whether the appeal before the Tribunal is maintainable. - HELD THAT: - Having refused condonation of delay and declined to admit the additional grounds, the Tribunal concluded that there remained no viable grievance to be adjudicated before it arising from the CIT(A)'s order. In view of the absence of any subsisting challenge from the assessee to the CIT(A) order, and the failure to justify delay, the appeal was held to be not maintainable and was dismissed in limine. [Paras 8, 15, 16]The appeal is not maintainable and is dismissed in limine.Final Conclusion: The application for condonation of delay and for admission of additional grounds is dismissed; no additional grievance survived the CIT(A) order and, consequently, the assessee's appeal for AY 2013-14 is held not maintainable and is dismissed in limine. 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.