IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘ A’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 9105/DEL/2019 [A.Y 2016-17] ITA No. 2560/DEL/2024 [A.Y 2017-18] ITA No. 4603/DEL/2024 [A.Y 2018-19] ITA No. 4604/DEL/2024 [A.Y 2019-20] ITA No. 2561/DEL/2024 [A.Y 2020-21]

M/s Aravali Power Company Vs. The Dy. C.I.T Pvt Ltd, NTPC Bhawan Circle – 3(1)

Core – 7, Scope Complex -7 Delhi

7, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi PAN: AAGCA 2437 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Adv Shri Ayush Garg, CA Department By : Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025

ORDER

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, AM :-

The above captioned five appeals by the assessee are directed against five separate orders of the ld. CIT(A)-I, Delhi dated 29.09.2016 for A.Y 2016-17, NFAC, Delhi dated 26.03.2024 for A.Y 2017-18, NFAC, Delhi dated 09.08.2024 for A.Y 2018-19 and A.Y 2019-20 and NFAC, Delhi dated 26.03.2024 for A.Y 2020-21 respectively.

2. Since all these five appeals pertaining to same assessee were heard together and involve common issues, they are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

ITA No. 9105/DEL/2019 [A.Y 2016-17]

3. The grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal read as under:

1.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad both in the eye of law and on facts.

Under the Normal Provisions of Income Tax Act

2. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 22,34,60,522/- made by the AO treating the sale proceeds of fly ash as income of the assessee while computing business income under the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act.

(ii) That the abovesaid addition has been confirmed rejecting the contention of the assessee that the amount received is in the nature of obligation, which cannot be considered as income of the assessee.

(iii) That the said addition has been confirmed rejecting the detailed submissions, explanations, and various judicial pronouncements' cited by the assessee in this regard.

3. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,04,71,362 / made by the AO treating the interest received on fly ash utilization reserve as income of the assessee while computing business income under the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act.

(ii) That the abovesaid addition has been confirmed rejecting the contention of the assessee that the amount received is in the nature of obligation, which cannot be considered as income of the assessee.

(iii) That the said addition has been confirmed rejecting the detailed submissions, explanations, and various judicial pronouncements' cited by the assessee in this regard.

Under the Provision of section 115JB of Income Tax Act

4. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 22,34,60,522/- made by the AO treating the sale proceeds of fly ash as income of the assessee while computing book profits under the provisions of section 115JB of the Income Tax Act.

(ii) That the abovesaid addition has been confirmed rejecting the contention of the assessee that the amount received is in the nature of obligation, which cannot be said to be the part of the income of the assessee.

(iii) That the said addition has been confirmed rejecting the detailed submissions, explanations, and various judicial pronouncements' cited by the assessee in this regard.

5. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,04,71,362 /- made by the AO treating the interest received on fly ash utilization reserve as income of the assessee under the provisions of section 115JB of the Income Tax Act.

(ii) Th