, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण विशाखापटणम पीठ म IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench श्री रिीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य एि ंश्री एस. बालकृष्णन, माननीय लेखा सदस्य SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BALAKRISHNAN. S, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2000/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2007-08)

Agri Gold Foods and Farm Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Products Limited Income Tax, Vijayawada Circle -2(1), PAN : AABCA8733E Vijayawada (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ : Shri Pawan Chakrapani, CA Assessee Represented by राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Department Represented by CIT(DR)

सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ : 07.08.2025 Date of Conclusion of Hearing घोर्णध की तधरीख/ : 09.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement

O R D E R

प्रनत रवीश सूद, जे.एम./PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M.

The present appeal filed by the assessee company is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Vijayawada, dated 16.03.2017, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O. u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) dated 31.03.2015 for A.Y. 2007-08. The assessee company has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us:

“1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case.

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has not appreciated the fact the AO has passed the Assessment order without passing the speaking order for the objections raised by the appellant company.

3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has not considered the fact that in the original assessment the Appellant has disclosed all the materials i.e. sale of agricultural land and the computation there of. The Additions made during the original Assessment will be added to the computation of income and it is evident that the AO has gone through the transactions under question. Hence the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) is erred in coming to the conclusion that there is no change of opinion.

4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has not observed the fact that the Appellant company has not converted the land into stock-in-trade and adopted the sale of land as business receipt.

5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has not observed the fact that the deferred revenue expenditure is well within the balance sheet and this expenditure was spent before the year under consideration.

6. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.”

2. Before proceeding, we may herein observe that the captioned appeal was, on an earlier occasion, disposed of by the Tribunal, vide its ex- parte order dated 26.03.2024. However, the same, on an application filed by the assessee company under Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, was recalled by the Tribunal vide its order passed in MA No. 12/Viz/2024, dated 11.12.2024.

3. Ostensibly, the present appeal involves a delay of 60 days. Shri Pawan Chakrapani, C.A., the learned Authorized Representative (for short “Ld. AR”) for the assessee company, at the threshold of the hearing of the appeal, submitted that the delay in filing the present appeal has crept in for the reason that Shri. Avva Venkata Subramanyeswara Sarma, the Director of the assessee company, at the relevant point of time, having been implicated in the Agri Gold Group Cases since April 2017 onwards, was in judicial custody at Eluru District Jail, Eluru, West Godavari District. It was submitted that as the Director had been moving to various courts, therefore, his accessibility for taking signatures on the appeal papers has caused the delay in filing the present appeal. The Ld. AR further submitted that as soon as the appellant reached Eluru District Jail, all the necessary steps for filing the appeal were taken and the appeal was filed on 04.12.2017. The Ld.