2025 (4) TMI 1958

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. There is a delay of 39 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee has filed condonation petition/affidavit stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. We have considered the petition/affidavit of delay in filing the appeal and satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Hence, the delay is hereby condoned. 3. The effective ground of appeal in this appeal of assessee is against order passed by Ld. PCIT holding the order passed by the A.O u/s. 143(3) of the Act erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue and directing the A.O to add back the amount of Rs. 57,40,430/-. 4. The assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of trading in si....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that the assessee has offered part of excess stock as business income and therefore, the order passed by the A.O is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue and directed the A.O to add back the amount of Rs. 57,40,430/-. Now, the assessee is in appeal before us against the order of Ld. PCIT. 6. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee has submitted that a survey was conducted on 25.02.2020, and the assessee has filed return of income on 31.12.2022 within the prescribed due date including the excess stock admitted during the survey. The Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee has filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 57,40,430/- including the business income of Rs. 40,55,711/- from M/s. TS....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) against the addition of Rs. 92,38,916/- made by the A.O . The Ld PCIT held the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the A.O without application of mind has reduced the income retuned by assessee even though they don't relate to excess stock assessed in the assessment order. The Ld. AR has argued that issue of excess stock is subject matter of appeal before Ld CIT(A), therefore PCIT does not have jurisdiction as per explanation 1(c) of section 263 of the Act. We do not find merit in the Ld AR's argument as the AO has reduced income from house property and income from other sources from the computation of total income and these two issues are not in appeal before Ld CIT(A). The explanation 1(c) of sect....