TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 2229
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erred in confirming the order of the Ld. AO sustaining the additions of Rs. 90,77,377/- so made vide order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 1.1 That, Ld. CIT(A) has further grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 90,77,377/-on account of alleged excess stock, so made by Ld.AO vide order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.254, despite the fact that this amount was not "excess stock not shown" but it was due to reduction in the value of unsold excess stock which remained as on 31.03.2013 and thus addition so made is without properly following the specific directions given by the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in ITA No. 643/JP/2017 and rather is contrary to the directions of Hon'ble ITAT. Appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Ld. CIT(A) in first round of proceedings, the revenue felt aggrieved and preferred an appeal before the coordinate bench at that time. The coordinate bench, Jaipur Benches vide its order dated: 31.05.2017 (ITA No. 643/JPR/2017) set aside the matter back to the file of the AO for limited purposes, i.e. verification of excess stock left unsold as on 31.03.2013 as under: "Therefore, so far as the applicability of amended provisions of section 115BBE of the Act is concerned, the same is applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2017 and not prior to that. However, the question arises whether the entire stock which was found excess at the time of search/survey remained unsold till 31st March 2013. So that the assessee can take the benefit of reducti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d preferred the present appeal before us. 5. We have gone through the original and subsequent order of the AO, order of the Ld. CIT(A) in first round and subsequent order also and order of the coordinate bench as discussed (supra). Before we proceed to adjudicate the matter, it is brought to our notice by the registry that the appeal filed is time barred by 138 days and for this the legal heirs of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay alongwith duly attested affidavit. Before coming to the merits of the case we need to examine and confirm that the delay was nonintentional/negligence and there was genuine reason behind the same. We have gone through the application of the assessee alongwith the affidavit filed before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be reasonably assumed that delay was certainly unintentional. In view of the above, giving benefit of doubt to the assessee because of her past conduct, delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 7. Now the question before us is of two-fold, i.e. whether the earlier directions issued by the coordinate bench have been followed in its true spirit or not and whether the absence of the assessee in the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) requires restoring the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) or based on material on record the Tribunal can decide the matter. It is observed that the initial dispute on the valuation was Rs. 2,32,09,339/- and presently the matter before us is reduced to Rs. 90,77,377/-. It implies that a major relief has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... provides that value of any benefit or perquisite, whether convertible into money or not, arising from a business or a profession is income-According to AO, along with an obligation of export commitment, assessee gets benefit of importing raw material duty free-CIT(A) followed conclusion of ITAT in A.Ys. 1999-2000 and 2000-01 and held that advance benefits ought not to be taxed in this year-ITAT upheld view of CIT(A)-Held, applying three tests laid in various decisions, namely, whether income accrued to assessee is real or hypothetical; whether there is a corresponding liability of other party to pass on benefits of duty free import to assessee even without any imports having been made; and probability or improbability of realisation of ben....