IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K(SMC)” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 133/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner of M M Plastoware India Private Income Tax, Circle-1, Thane Limited Gala No. 10-15, Arihant Darshan, Vs.

90 Feet Road, Bhayander West, Thane – 101101.

(PAN: AAHCM2568D)

(Appellant) ( R e spondent)

C.O. No. 120/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M M Plastoware India Private Deputy Commissioner of Income Limited Tax, Circle-1, Thane Gala No. 10-15, Arihant Darshan, 90 Feet Road, Vs.

Bhayander West, Thane – 101101.

(PAN: AAHCM2568D)

(Appellant) ( R e spondent)

Present for:

Assessee : Shri Lalit Munoyat, CA Revenue : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 22.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10.03.2026

O R D E R

PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the Revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee against the order of ADDL/JCIT (A)-3 Bengaluru, vide order nos. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1070018243(1), dated 29.10.2024, passed against the assessment order by ACIT, Circle 2, Thane, u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated

22.11.2018, for Assessment Year 2016-17.

ITA No. 133/MUM/2025; Assessment Year: 2016-17

2. Grounds taken by revenue are reproduced as under:

“1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, while deciding Ground of Appeal Nos. 4, 5 & 6, the CIT(A) vide Para 4.3 directed to allow the depreciation of Rs.2,16,31,266/, without appreciating the fact that the total depreciation of Rs.2,16,31,266/- includes the unclaimed depreciation of Rs.11,72,128/including an amount of Rs.11,72,128/- which stands dismissed by the CIT(A) in Para No.4.2.1 while deciding Ground Nos.1&3 in the impugned order, thereby bringing the order of the CIT(A) within the ambit of perversity.

2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, while deciding the Ground of Appeal No.2 for allowing unclaimed additional depreciation u/s.32(1)(ila) of 20% on the new asset acquired during FY 2015-16, the CIT(A) erred in Para No.4.2.4 by allowing the appeal of the assessee without discussing the facts and figures on the issue under consideration, thereby rendering the appellate order of the CIT(A) as perverse.

3. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored.”

C.O. No. 120/MUM/2025; Assessment Year: 2016-17

2.1. Grounds taken by assessee are reproduced as under:

“1. Whether on facts and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in rejecting the Cross Objector's claim for correction of depreciation to the extent of Rs. 11,72,128/- during the assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, solely on the ground that such claim was not made in the original return of income and that no revised return had been filed, and whether the learned CIT(A) rightly granted relief on this issue?

2. Whether the rejection of the Cross Objector's claim for correction of depreciation, despite the same being a rectification of an inadvertent computational error apparent from the depreciation. schedules and books of accounts on record, is sustainable in law, particularly when the correction is necessary to compute the correct taxable income and ensure continuity and correctness of depreciation over the years?

3. Whether the reliance placed by the Assessing Officer on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Lid. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) is misplaced, considering that the said decision only bars entertaining fresh claims not made in the return, and does not apply to correction or recomputation of an existing claim during the assessment proceedings?

4. Whether the action of the Assessing Officer in refusing to entertain the correction of depreciation claim is contrary to the binding judicial precedents of the :-

4.1. Hon'ble Supreme Court in NTPC Lid. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court held that under Section 254 of the Income-tax