IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 693 & 694/Ahd/2025 (िनधा(cid:91)रण वष (cid:91) / Assessment Years : 2020-21 & 2021-22)

Apraava Renewable बनाम/ Principal Commissioner Energy Private Limited of Income Tax Vs.

7^th Floor, Fulcrum Andheri Ahmedabad-1 East, Sahar Road, Sahar P & T Colony S.O Sahargaon, B.O. Mumbai-400099, Maharashtra Öथायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AADCC4393G (Appellant) .. (Respondent Shri Vartik Choksi, A.R.

अपीलाथ(cid:568) ओर से /Appellant by :

Shri Sher Singh, CIT. DR (cid:292)×यथ(cid:568) क(cid:551) ओर से/Respondent by :

Date of Hearing 28/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement 03/09/2025 (आदेश)/ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM:

Both appeals relate to the same assessee and are against separate orders passed by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, PCIT, Ahmedabad-1 (in short “PCIT”), dated 06.03.2025 & 08.03.2025 passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relate to Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2020-21 & 2021-22 respectively.

2. Perusal of both the orders of the Ld. PCIT reveal that he assumed jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act in both the years finding the assessment order passed to be erroneous causing prejudice to the Revenue:

(a) on account of excess claim of depreciation allowed by the AO without making proper enquiry / no enquiry in A.Y. 2020-21 &

2021-22 &

(b) on account of claim of deduction u/s.43B of the Act, which as per the Ld. PCIT, the facts revealed had been wrongly allowed by the AO.

Therefore, there is a common issue on account of which the assessment order passed in the case of the assessee in the impugned two years was found to be erroneous and for the said reason, both the appeals were taken up for hearing and are being disposed of by the consolidated order.

3. We have heard both the parties and have gone through the order of the Ld. PCIT for both the years and we have no hesitation in holding that there is no finding of error by the Ld. PCIT in his order passed on the issues noted above in both the years. The order, therefore, passed by the Ld. PCIT u/s.263 of the Act, we hold is not sustainable in both the years. Our detailed reason for arriving at this conclusion is as follows:

3.1 As stated above, the assessment orders for both the years were found to be erroneous on the common issue of excess claim of depreciation allowed to the assessee by the AO without making any enquiry on the matter. The reasons noted by the Ld. PCIT for arriving at this finding are the same in both the years. The Ld. PCIT noted that the assessee’s claim of depreciation far exceeded that allowable by applying the rate prescribed by the Auditor, in the Tax Audit Report, on the opening WDV and addition made to the assets. In A.Y. 2020-21, he noted the assessee to have claimed total depreciation of Rs.362.53 Crores, however, as per Ld. PCIT, by applying the rate prescribed by the Auditor in the Audit Report, to the opening WDV and the addition made to assets, the assessee was noted to have claimed excess depreciation of Rs.176.39 Crores. In A.Y. 2021-22,the Ld. PCIT noted the assessee to have claimed total depreciation of Rs.362.59 Crores and on computing the depreciation at the rate prescribed by the Auditor in Audit Report on the opening WDV and addition to assets, he found the assessee to have claimed and been granted excess depreciation amounting to Rs.204.30 Crores.

3.2 On the basis of this fact noted from the records the Ld. PCIT assumed revisionary jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act and issued show cause notice to the assessee. The order of the Ld.PCIT reveals the assessee to have submitted its reply to the said show cause notice stating that there was no error in the claim of depreciation made by the assessee, pointing out that the rate of depreciation pertained to the Straight Line Method (‘SLM’) rate of depreciation, which was applied on th