आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘DB-A ‘Bench, Hyderabad (cid:373)ी रिवश सूद,(cid:586)ाियक सद(cid:735) एव ं(cid:373)ी मधुसूदन साविड़या लेखा सद(cid:735) सम(cid:407) |

Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.898/Hyd/2024 (िनधा१रण वष१/Assessment Year: 2020-21)

M/s. TMEIC Industrial Vs. Dy.CIT Systems India Private Limited Circle 2(1)

Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN: AADCT5493J (Appellant) (Respondent)

िनधा१ौरती (cid:554)ारा/Assessee by: C.As, K. C. Devdas, Kranthi Palivela & Mrudulatha राज(cid:830) व (cid:554)ारा/Revenue by: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT (DR)

सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 08/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/12/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by M/s. TMEIC Industrial Systems India Private Limited (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. A.O), under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 25.07.2024 for the A.Y.

2020-21.

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

3. The assessee has also raised the following additional grounds:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad (“Ld. Ld. AO”) erred in including transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.72,65,88,412/- while computing the book profits and thereby arriving at a tax demand of Rs.19,46,92,344/-.

2. The Learned Assessing Officer failed to note that the transfer pricing adjustment does not constitute part of the book profits. Furthermore, the Appellant had sufficient carried forward business losses to offset the adjustment made, resulting in no payable demand.

3. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing”

4. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the grounds raised in the additional ground are purely legal in nature and do not require investigation of any fresh facts. It was accordingly submitted that, in terms of Rule 11 of the Income Tax Appellate Rules, 1963 (“the ITAT Rules”) and in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (229 ITR 383), the additional ground merits admission.

5. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) objected to the admission of the additional ground by placing reliance on para no. 5 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra). She submitted that as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said paragraph, an additional ground can be admitted only where a non-taxable item has been taxed or a permissible deduction has been denied. According to the Ld. DR, the present case does not fall in either of these situations and therefore the additional ground raised by the assessee cannot be admitted. She further submitted that the additional ground is not covered by Rule 11 of the ITAT Rules. Accordingly, she argued that the additional grounds raised by the assessee are liable to be rejected.

6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we have gone through para nos. 5 to 8 of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd.

Vs. CIT (supra), which is to the following effect:

“5. Under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. The power of the Tribunal in dealing with appeals is, thus, expressed in the widest possible terms. The purpose of the assessment proceedings before the taxing authorities is to assess correctly the tax liability of an assessee in accordance with law. If, for example, as a result of a judicial decision given while the appeal is pending before the Tri