IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI,VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.501/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Vikas Goyal No.521, 2^nd Floor, Ranka Park Apartments DCIT Lalbagh Road Vs. Circle 7(1)(1)

Bengaluru 560 027 Bengaluru PAN NO :AABPG0982E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Venkat Raj, A.R.

Respondent by : Sri Subramanian, D.R.

Date of Hearing : 09.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 16.12.2025

O R D E R

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT (A)/NFAC dated 10/01/2025 vide DIN and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072089214(1) passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”)

for the Assessment Year 2021-22.

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

1) TheCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on law and facts of the case in confirming the rectification order passed u/ s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 16/02/2024 by the learned Assessing Officer without appreciating the facts that the appellant/ assessee is eligible for claiming Thirty percent deprecation on goods carriage vehicles used in transportation business. Thus, it is prayed •that the disallowance and addition of Rs.25,04,887/- may kindly be deleted.

2) The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts of the case and law that suo-moto rectification order passed u/s. 154 of the Act on 16/02/2024 is without affording opportunity of being heard to the appellant and therefore the rectification order passed on 16/02/2024 is illegal and against the principle of natural justice.

3. The brief fact of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of (i) Sale of cement, sanitary items and hardware items and (ii) Carriage and forward of goods (transportation business). The assessee filed his return of income for the AY 2021- 22 u/s. 139(1) of the Act on 14/02/2022 declaring total income of Rs.67,84,820/- and paid the total tax and interest amounting to Rs.21,57,843/-. The said return of income was thereafter processed by the CPC and accordingly intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act was passed on 05/12/2022 by computing the total income at Rs.92,89,710/- as against the returned income of Rs.67,84,820/- and accordingly raised the tax demand of Rs.11,94,370/-. While passing the intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act, the total depreciation as debited to profit and loss account amounting to Rs.73,62,335/- was restricted to Rs.48,57,448/-& thus the CPC only disallowed the deprecation amounting to Rs.25,04,887/-. Further, the prepaid taxes claimed by the assessee in the return of income amounting to Rs.21,57,843/- was restricted to Rs.21,13,083/- by not giving the TDS credit of Rs.44,760/- due to mismatch between tax credit claimed by the assessee and the tax credit as reflected in Form

26AS.

3.1 Aggrieved by the aforesaid intimation dated 05/12/2022 passed by the CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act, the assessee filed grievance application on 06/02/2024 stating that in the said intimation, the depreciation amounting to Rs.48,57,448/- had been allowed instead of Rs.73,62,335/- as claimed and the TDS credit amounting to Rs.44,760/- was not been considered and accordingly charged interest u/s.234A, 234B and 234C resulting in the total tax demand of Rs.11,94,370/-. The ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore thereafter passed a rectification order u/s. 154 of the Act on 16/02/2024 by merely stating that the depreciation computed by CPC on plant and machinery of Rs.43,18,842/- which is @ of 15% of Rs.2,87,92,278/- is found to be correct. The excess depreciation claimed by the assessee is hereby rejected and the TDS credit claimed by the assessee found to be correct and accordingly determine the total tax payable amounting to Rs.13,10,551/- after allowing the TDS credit of Rs.44,760/- and levied interest u/s. 220(2) of the Act from

05/12/2022 to 16/02