आयकर अपील(cid:9)य अ(cid:10)धकरण, ’ए’ (cid:14)यायपीठ, चे(cid:14)नई।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI (cid:1)ी मनु कु मार िग(cid:12)र, (cid:14)ाियक सद(cid:18) एवं (cid:1)ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद(cid:18) के सम(cid:29)

BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No 2317/Chny/2025 (cid:24)नधाtiरण वष/ti Assessment Year: 2017-18 HAMEED MARINE PRIVATE LIMITED v. The ACIT, CIRCLE-1, No. 27/1, RASAK ROAD, EDALAKUDY, NAGERCOIL, NAGERCOIL, NAGERCOIL SIVARAJ BUILDING, TOWER TAMIL NADU-629002 JUNCTION ROAD, NEGERCOIL-629001 [PAN: AADCH 3419 C (अपीलाथ(cid:29)/Appellant) ((cid:30)(cid:31)यथ(cid:29)/Respondent)

अपीलाथ(cid:29) क ओर से/ Appellant/Assessee by : Mr. T. Vasudevan, Advocate (cid:30)(cid:31)यथ(cid:29) क ओर से /Respondent/Revenue by : Mr. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT सुनवाई क तार(cid:9)ख/Date of Hearing : 12.01.2026 घोषणाक तार(cid:9)ख /Date of Pronouncement : 18.02.2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

This captioned Appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A)-4 MUMBAI [CIT(A)] dated

11.07.2025 for Assessment Year 2017-18.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -

1. The impugned order is illegal, opposed to the facts, contrary to law, without jurisdiction and against the principles of natural justice and therefore liable to be quashed.

2. For that on the facts of the case, the Assessing Officer issuing the notice u/s.143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 09.08.2018 did not have jurisdiction over the case of the assessee, as there was no mention of the type of scrutiny under which the case of the assessee has been selected, hence the notice is bad-in law and the assessment order passed on the basis of such notice is baseless and non est.

3. The learned assessing officer erred in issuing the notice u/s. 143(2) dated 09.08.2018 without complying with the CBDT Instruction F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017and so the notice issued u/s. 143(2) is not valid as per Provision of Act and consequently the entire assessment proceedings are invalid.

4. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.31,41,044/- towards the depreciation claimed by the assessee on the second hand machinery when the assessing officer did not record any satisfaction note that the main purpose of the transfer of such assets, directly or indirectly to the assessee, was the reduction of a liability to income-tax (by claiming depreciation with reference to an enhanced cost) as required under Explanation 3 to section 43(1).

5. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in determining the actual cost of the second hand machinery at Nil without taking the approval of the Addl/Joint CIT as required under Explanation 3 to section 43(1).

6. The learned CIT(A) ought to have known that the purchase of second hand machinery is genuine supported by proper vouchers, transport bills and VAT Paid details etc., 7. The appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend or modify any or all the grounds at any time before or at the time of the hearing.

3. The assessee is engaged in the business of producing steam sterilized fish meal, fish oil and fish soluble and other extracts. In its return of income, the assessee admitted a total income of Rs.18,68,860/-. In its return of income, the assessee had claimed depreciation on the purchase of second-hand machinery for a total value of Rs.2,14,80,600/-. The depreciation so claimed was for Rs.31,41,044/-. The Assessing Officer (‘AO’ in short) issued notice u/s.143(2) dated 09.8.2018 for scrutiny assessment by CASS and one of the issues considered was that "Opening Written Down Value of fixed assets as per ITR of current is greater than closing Written Down Value of fixed assets as per ITR of preceding year". In response, the assessee filed the details of machinery purchased. In the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) dated 06.12.2019, the AO held th