TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 131
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in law and in facts in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against the assessment order u/s 144(1)(c) of the Act and wrongly confirming addition of Rs. 3,45,64,115/- in the hands of the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in dismissing the appeal without granting sufficient opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the disallowance made by the Ld. Assessing Officer on account of custom duty amounting to Rs. 5,09,892/-. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the disallowance made by the Ld. Assessing Officer on account of miscellaneous expenses written off amounting to Rs. 1,20,069/-. 5. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the assessee attended and filed details. However, on subsequent dates the assessee failed to furnish require details and explanation called by assessing officer. The assessing officer completed the assessment under section 144. The assessing officer made various additions in the assessment order for the want of necessary explanation and evidence from assessee. The assessing officer while passing the assessment order made seven different additions /disallowance as mentioned in para-12 the assessment order dated 28th December 2007. 3. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed before appeal before learned CIT(A). The appeal of assessee was dismissed by learned CIT(A) vide order dated 20th February 2009. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny information. The learned CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of assessee vide order dated 20th February 2009. The assessee was facing financial crisis and the creditors of assessee filed winding up proceedings and file Company Petition before Hon'ble Bombay High Court wherein a winding up order was passed on 10 January 2008. However, the order passed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court was set aside vide order dated 5th June 2008 & 12th June 2008. At the time of passing such order by High Court of Bombay, the proceedings before learned CIT (A) were pending. A search action under section 132 was carried out at the premises of Temptation Foods Ltd on 24 September 2009, pursuant to which the case of Temptation Food Limited was reopened. The impact of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... served by challenging the order passed in earlier proceeding. The assessee has no deliberate or melafide intention, rather the assessee was pursuing such subsequent proceeding in a bonafide manner. After dismissal of appeal by learned CIT(A) on 29.08.2024, the assessee was advised to filed separate appeal against the order of ld. CIT(A) passed in 2009. The learned AR of the assessee submits that assessee is good case on merit and is liable to be succeed, if the assessee is given one more opportunity to contest the case on merit. The period of delay is not relevant rather the sufficiency of reason or bonefidies has to be considered while considering the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal. To support submission the learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee is having a full-fledged legal team which is contesting various legal issues in different judicial forms. The assessee has prepared a self-serving story. The appeal is filed only after order giving effect by assessing officer vide his order dated 09.09.2024, wherein brought forward losses is allowed. The present appeal is filed, with sole intention to take the benefit of brought forward losses. 7. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the lower authorities carefully. We have also deliberated on various case laws relied by ld. AR of the assessee. We find that order by ld. CIT(A), which is challenged before us was passed on 19.02.2009. The present appeal is filed on 03.10.2024. Thus, the....