TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1230
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....41,29,577/- after carrying out certain adjustments aggregating to Rs. 1,94,34,80,603/-. The principal adjustments comprised disallowance of expenditure amounting to Rs. 1,94,09,73,923 under section 37 on account of provision for impairment of Property, Plant and Equipment and provision for capital advances, besides an adjustment of Rs. 25,06,680 under section 36(1)(va) relating to employees' contribution towards PF/ESI. Aggrieved by the aforesaid intimation, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). 3. During the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A), before entering upon the merits of the additions, examined the maintainability of the appeal from the standpoint of limitation. According to the learned CIT(A), the impugned intimation dated 06.06.2020 had been received by the assessee on 07.06.2020, whereas the appeal came to be filed on 29.07.2020, resulting in a delay of twenty-three days beyond the period prescribed under section 249(2) of the Act. The learned CIT(A) further noticed that in Form No. 35 the assessee had indicated that there was no delay in filing the appeal and had not filed any separate application seeking condonation of delay. Proceeding ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. It was submitted that although the assessee had partly succeeded before the learned CIT(A), the finding recorded by the learned CIT(A) that the appeal was delayed by twenty-three days is itself contrary to the statutory scheme governing limitation during the relevant period. Elaborating the submissions, the learned counsel drew our attention to the chronology of events and submitted that the impugned intimation under section 143(1) was issued and the appeal was instituted during the period when the limitation prescribed under various fiscal statutes stood extended by virtue of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020, the notifications issued thereunder and the suo motu orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court extending limitation in view of the unprecedented disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. According to him, once these statutory relaxations and binding judicial directions are taken into consideration, the appeal filed by the assessee on 29.07.2020 was well within the extended period of limitation and, therefore, the question of seeking condonation of delay never arose. 7. Developing the submissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amining the maintainability of the appeal. 11. On the strength of the aforesaid statutory provisions and judicial directions, the learned Counsel submitted that the finding recorded by the learned CIT(A) in paragraphs 1.2 to 1.5 of the impugned order, holding that the appeal was delayed by 23 days and dismissing the same as time barred, deserves to be reversed. It was submitted that once the finding regarding limitation is held to be erroneous, the very foundation of the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal disappears because the Revenue has challenged only the jurisdiction of the learned CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after declining condonation of delay. 12. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the learned Counsel further submitted that even on the substantive issues, particularly in respect of the adjustment of Rs. 1,94,09,73,923 under section 37, the findings recorded by the learned CIT(A) are based entirely upon the contemporaneous material available on record, including the computation of income, Schedule BP, reconciliation statements and the response furnished before the CPC during the processing stage itself. It was, therefore, submitted that even if....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the period available for instituting the appeal, the question of treating the appeal as delayed simply did not arise. Consequently, there was neither any requirement nor any occasion for the assessee to invoke section 249(3) of the Act by filing an application seeking condonation of delay. The very premise on which the learned CIT(A) has proceeded, namely that the appeal suffered from a delay of twenty-three days, is thus found to be contrary to the statutory provisions governing the field. 16. Apart from the aforesaid statutory relaxation, the series of suo motu orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation had also directed extension of limitation prescribed under general as well as special laws in view of the unprecedented disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. These directions were binding upon all judicial and quasi judicial authorities. The learned CIT(A), while deciding the issue of limitation, neither adverted to the aforesaid statutory relaxations nor examined the applicability of the binding directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, the conclusion reached by the learned CIT(A) that the appeal was barred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tarily added back while computing the taxable income in the return itself under Schedule BP and, therefore, the adjustment made by the CPC resulted in duplication of the disallowance and a corresponding double reduction of the returned loss. It is this aspect which now requires examination. 21. We have independently examined the findings recorded by the learned CIT(A) on the aforesaid issue in the light of the material placed before us. From the record, it is evident that immediately upon receipt of the notice proposing adjustment under section 143(1)(a), the assessee had furnished its response before the Centralised Processing Centre specifically pointing out that the provision for impairment of Property, Plant and Equipment amounting to Rs. 1,87,36,37,646 and provision for capital advances amounting to Rs. 6,73,36,277 had already been voluntarily disallowed by it while computing the taxable income in the original return itself. The assessee had further explained that these amounts formed part of the aggregate additions reflected in Schedule BP under the head "Any other item or items of additions under sections 28 to 44DA" and, therefore, any further adjustment on the very same....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Significantly, this explanation was not conceived for the first time during the appellate proceedings but had been consistently put forth even at the stage of processing before the CPC. Thus, the factual foundation accepted by the learned CIT(A) emanates from contemporaneous material forming part of the assessment record itself and not from any fresh evidence introduced subsequently. 25. It is equally significant that the Revenue, while preferring the present appeal, has not challenged these factual findings by raising any specific ground nor has any material been brought before us to demonstrate that the reconciliation accepted by the learned CIT(A) suffers from any factual infirmity. No attempt has been made to show that the impugned amounts were not included in the computation of income or that the figures reflected in Schedule BP do not correspond with the reconciliation furnished by the assessee. In the absence of any material contradicting the factual appreciation undertaken by the learned CIT(A), we find no justification to take a view different from the one arrived at by him. 26. Once it is demonstrated from the computation of income itself that the assessee had volun....