TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 142
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT(A)"] dated 16.04.2021 vide Appeal No. CIT(A), Kolkata-2/10492/2019- 20 which is arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the "Act") dated 11.12.2019 by ITO, Ward- 4(2), Kolkata. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: "1. That Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi ('Appellate Authority' in brief) has erred in law as well as in fact and or has misdirected himself/ herself in sustaining and or upholding on alleged ground addition of Rs. 6,61,299/- erroneously and or illegally made on alleged ground by Ld Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2) Kolkata ('AO' or Assessing Officer in brief) in respect of a trading/ business loss of said Rs. 6,61....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her deliberate nor intentional but was due to the pandemic circumstances prevailing at that time. We take note of the pandemic situation where the movement of people were restricted and because of such practical situation, it was always not possible to follow the time of limitation regarding filing of appeal before various forums. This fact was also observed and taken cognizance of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Civil Original Jurisdiction, Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 dated 8th March, 2021. The assessee has also filed separately condonation petition. The ld. D/R agreed for the condonation of delay of 42 days. After hearing the parties and taking guidance from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra), we ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat Mr. Kamal Khara who signed the contract with M/s. Ridhi Siddhi is expired before some time. The alleged amount of Rs. 6,61,299/- is purely a business loss which needs to be allowed. Reference was further made to another paper book dated 06.12.2021 containing 52 pages. 6. Per contra, ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the order of both the lower authorities. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records and carefully gone through the documents filed before us. The assessee's sole grievance is that ld. CIT(A) erred in not allowing the claim of business loss of Rs. 6,61,299/- incurred on account of advance forfeited by a foreign seller namely M/s. Ridhi Siddhi constituted at UAE. 7.1. We notice that the assessee is en....