IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, F: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.- 2405/Del/2019 and 2407/Del/2019 [Assessment Years: 2010-11 and 2012-13]

Vedanta Limited (formerly known Assistant Commissioner of Income as the Madras Aluminium Company Tax, Ltd.), 3^rd Floor, Core-6, Scope Vs Circle 26(1), Complex, 7, Lodhi Road, South New Delhi-110002.

Delhi, New Delhi-110003.

PAN- AACCS7101B Assessee Revenue ITA Nos.- 2250/Del/2019 and 2251/Del/2019 [Assessment Years: 2010-11 and 2012-13]

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vedanta Limited (formerly known Tax, as the Madras Aluminium Circle 26(1), Vs Company Ltd.), 3^rd Floor, Core-6, New Delhi-110002. Scope Complex, 7, Lodhi Road, South Delhi, New Delhi-110003 PAN- AACCS7101B Revenue Assessee Assessee by Shri Ravi Sharma, Adv. &

Ms. Shruti Khimta, Adv.

Revenue by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 20.02.2026

ORDER

PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM:

These cross appeals have been preferred by the Assessee (ITA Nos. 2405/Del/

2019 and 2407/Del/2019) and Revenue (ITA Nos.- 2250/Del/2019 and 2251/Del/2019) against two separate orders both dated 28.12.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-9, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] pertaining to Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2012-13, arising out of two separate Assessment orders both dated 29.12.2017 passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by ACIT, Circle 26(1), New Delhi for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2012-13 respectively. Since, common issues are involved in these appeals, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.

2. First, we take up the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 being ITA No. -

2405/Del/2019

3. Brief fact in this case: The assessee is a Company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of aluminum as well as in the commercial power generation business. The assessee filed its original return of income on September 28, 2010 wherein income under normal provision of Rs. 81,99,029 and book profit under MAT provisions of Rs. 1,68,14,36,980 was offered to tax. The return of income was selected for scrutiny wherein the AO while framing the assessment order dated January 28, 2013 made an addition amounting to Rs. 2,06,19,999 under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') to the income under normal provision.

3.1 Being aggrieved from the aforementioned impugned order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated May 31, 2017 allowed the appeal of the Appellant and deleted the impugned addition made by the Id. AO. The Ld. AO preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. The Hon'ble ITAT vide order dated April 10, 2018 (ITA No. 214/Panaji/2017) upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

3.2 During the pendency of appeal before the CIT(A) against the original assessment order, re-assessment proceedings were also initiated by the Ld. AO vide notice dated December 23, 2016, issued under Section 148 of the Act. The assessee vide letter dated January 19, 2017 sought reasons from the AO for reopening of the assessment proceedings. The AO vide letter dated September 12, 2017 provided the below-mentioned reasons to the Appellant for reopening of assessment.

a. Addition made u/s 14A of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,06,19,999 not added back to the book profit of the Appellant u/s 115.JB of the Act.

b. Non claim of additional depreciation amounting to Rs. 15,49,26,546 resulting in excess claim of deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act.

3.3 The assessee filed its response on October 26, 2017 wherein the assessee objected to the issuance of the notice being barred by limitation in view of proviso to section 147 of the Act as there was no failure on part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment proceedings. However, the AO