IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIPAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRIBRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6540/Del/2018 िनधा(cid:6981)रणवष/(cid:6981) Assessment Year:2010-11 (Physical Hearing)

NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, बनाम DCIT, Phase-II, Dadri Road, Noida, Vs. Circle-2, Uttar Pradesh. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, A-Block, Sector-24, PAN No.AAALN0639A Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

अपीलाथ(cid:7278) Appellant (cid:7079)(cid:7004)यथ(cid:7278)/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6541/Del/2018 िनधा(cid:6981)रणवष(cid:6981)/Assessment Year:2012-13 NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, बनाम DCIT,Circle-2, Phase-II, Dadri Road, Noida, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. PAN No.AAALN0639A अपीलाथ(cid:7278) Appellant (cid:7079)(cid:7004)यथ(cid:7278)/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6732/Del/2018 िनधा(cid:6981)रणवष(cid:6981)/Assessment Year:2012-13 ACIT, बनाम NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, Circle-2, Vs. Phase-II, Dadri Road, Noida, Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Uttar Pradesh.

A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. PAN No.AAALN0639A अपीलाथ(cid:7278) Appellant (cid:7079)(cid:7004)यथ(cid:7278)/Respondent Assessee by Shri Ram Avtar Sharma, CA &

Shri Bhupesh Agarwal, CA Revenue by Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR सुनवाईक(cid:7409)तारीख/ Date of hearing: 26.11.2025 उ(cid:7363)ोषणाक(cid:7409)तारीख/Pronouncement on 12.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1. These three appeals, out of which two cross appeal for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 and appeal by assessee for AY 2011-12 are directed against the separate orders of learned CIT(A). As in all the appeals, certain facts are common thus all the appeals are clubbed, heard together and are decided by common order to avoid the conflicting decisions. In appeal for AY 2011-12, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

Grounds of appeal for AY 2011-12

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case lower authorities have erred in invoking the provisions of section 147/148 without there being existence of any valid reason to believe that the income of appellant has escaped assessment.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance of deduction amounting to Rs.13,96,53,930/- claimed by the appellant u/s 80IC the Income Tax Act, 1961 merely on the basis that ITR was filed belatedly u/s 139(4) for the AY 2010-11 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by invoking section 80AC of the Act.

2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that appellant-authority was established by Central Government under the provisions of Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 (SEZ). The appellant authority was set-up to promote export in the country and to earn foreign exchange to the nation. The assessee authority was set-up as per mandate of section 34 of SEZ to carry out function of development, operation and management of SEZ. The assessee authority filed it return of income for AY 2010-11 on 25.03.2011 declaring nil income and claimed refund of Rs.1,56,200/-. In the computation of income the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 13.96 Crore under section 80AB. The return was processed under section 143(1). The deduction under section 80AB was disallowed on the ground that it was not claimed in the return of income. The assessee filed application under section 154 for rectification, but the same was dismissed. However, on further appeal before CIT(A)-1, Noida, the claim of deduction under section 80AB of Rs.13.96 Crore was allowed vide order dated 31.03.2016. Copy of intimation under section 143(1), order under section 154 dated 17.02.2012 and order of CIT(A) dated 31.03.2016 is already placed on record. However, subsequently, the ld. PCIT in its letter (direction) dated 21.07.2016, directed the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings under section 147. Pursuant to the di