IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.154/JAB/2016 A.Y. 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, vs. M/s RPJ Minerals Private PAN:AACCR7044Q Ward-1, Satna, M.P. Limited, Maihar, Distt. Satna (Appellant) (Respondent)

And ITA No.86/JAB/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 M/s RPJ Minerals Private Limited, vs. The Income Tax Officer, PAN: AACCR7044Q Maihar, Distt. Satna Ward-1, Satna, M.P.

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by: None Revenue by: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Meena, CIT DR Date of hearing: 15.09 .2025 Date of pronouncement: 19.09.2025 O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.

These two appeals have been filed by the assessee and the Revenue respectively against the orders of the ld. CIT(A)-2, Jabalpur dated 13.04.2016 and the

orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC dated 8.08.2022. As there are common issues involved

in these two orders and they were heard together, they are being taken up

simultaneously for the sake of convenience. The grounds of appeal in these two cases

are as under:-

ITA No.- 154/JAB/2016

1. On the facts in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT (A) has erred in deleting receipts of interest of Rs.3,14,93,819/- assessed by the AO under the “head" other source of income" without appreciating actual facts of the case as interest was earned on surplus fund not required for setting of business.

2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has earned in giving finding that the amount lying with the bank in form of FDR's is inextricably linked with the setting up of projecť without mentioning the facts of the case under consideration.

3 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs FACOR POWER LTD (Delhi) when particularly the facts of the cases are different to this case and are more similar t the case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s TUTUCRIN ALKALI CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(1997) 141 CTR (SC) 387: (1997) 227 ITR 172.

4. That the appellant reserves the right to amend/alter any of the grounds of appeal/add other grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

ITA No.- 86/JAB/2022 “1. On 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in not deleting the sum of Rs.23,01,000/- being amount of Rural Infrastructure Tax paid before the due date of submission of return as details of payment are observed at para 6.1 of the appellate order and evidence of payment was on his record.

2. The learned CIT(A) erred in remanding the matter before A.O. in respect to addition u/s 43B of I.T. Act 1961 at Rs.23,01,000/- for verification even though complete evidence for payment of Rural Infrastructure Tax was available on record.

3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition of Rs.23,01,000/-

made by A.O. u/s 43B of I.T. Act 1961 considering the evidence on record.

4. That the authorities below has brushed aside the assessee's explanation that the Dead Rent of Rs. 1,56,603/- is not a part of statutory dues nor an expenditure; which is in the nature of tax, duty, cess or fee to which provisions of section 43B of I.T. Act, 1961 could be invoked.

5. The learned CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition of Rs.14,21,215/- assessed under the head income from other sources after having concluded that the issue is covered in favour of assessee by the orders of CIT(A) in the earlier assessment years.

6. The learned CIT(A) erred in not deleting the addition of Rs. 14,21,215/-on the basis of orders of appellate authorities in the case of assessee for past assessment years.

7. The assessee denies liabilities to pay interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961, Without prejudice, levy of interest under section 234A, 234B and

234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive.

8. Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time of hearing.”

2. We may take up ITA No. 154/JAB/2016 in the first instance. The facts of the case a