Court Permits 370-Day Delay in Appeal Re-filing; Issues Already Covered, No Substantial Legal Questions Found

The court allowed the condonation of a 370-day delay in re-filing the appeal, as it was unopposed by the respondent. The appeal, concerning the Assessment Year 2013-14, challenged the ITAT order on issues of depreciation of securities, disallowance of pension fund contributions, and disallowance under section 14A. The court found that these issues were covered by previous decisions and did not present substantial questions of law. Consequently, the appeal was closed, with instructions for the parties to proceed based on the digitally signed order.

---

---

Issues involved:
Delay in re-filing the appeal; Appeal challenging ITAT order regarding depreciation of securities, disallowance of contribution to pension fund, and disallowance under section 14A.

Delay in re-filing the appeal:
An application was filed seeking condonation of a 370-day delay in re-filing the appeal. The respondent did not oppose the request, and the application was allowed, leading to its disposal.

Appeal challenging ITAT order:
The appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2013-14 and seeks to challenge the ITAT order regarding various issues. The appellant raised questions concerning the deletion of additions made by the AO, including depreciation of securities, disallowance of contribution to the pension fund, and disallowance under section 14A.

Depreciation of securities:
The appellant contended that the depreciation claimed by the assessee was not justified as investments were not shown as "stock in trade." The senior standing counsel informed that this issue was covered by a previous court decision, and no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

Disallowance of contribution to pension fund:
The appellant challenged the deletion of the disallowance made by the AO regarding the contribution to the pension fund. The counsel indicated that this issue was also covered by a previous court decision, and no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

Disallowance under section 14A:
The appellant contested the deletion of disallowance made by the AO under section 14A. It was noted that the shares were held as stock in trade by the assessee, and therefore, Section 14A could not have been applied. The court found that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in this regard.

Closure of the appeal:
Given the circumstances and the information about a Special Leave Petition being preferred, the court closed the appeal. The parties were instructed to act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.

---