IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2018-19 Ghodawat Skystar LLP DCIT, Circle – 1, Kolhapur (Formerly Ghodawat Consumer Products LLP)

Vs.

Plot No.438, AP Chipri VIA Jaysingpur Shirol, Kolhapur – 416101 PAN: AAMFG7028C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri B S Rajpurohit Department by : Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 08-12-2025 Date of pronouncement : 09-12-2025

O R D E R

PER R.K. PANDA, VP:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated

11.03.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2018-19.

2. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in confirming the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1,00,05,726/- made by the Assessing Officer and Rs.1,68,60,314/- disallowed by the Assessing Officer out of interest expenses.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an LLP and filed its return of income on 31.10.2018 declaring total income at Rs.Nil. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and subsequently selected for complete scrutiny assessment through CASS. Accordingly, statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. Subsequently notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with a questionnaire was issued and served on the assessee.

4. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noticed from the tax audit report that the assessee has made huge additions to the fixed assets to the tune of Rs.17.08 crores under various blocks. However, he noticed that in many of the cases the date of purchase and the date of put to use of the asset is stated 31.03.2018. Since the machinery requires some time for installing the same in the factory before commencing its commercial production, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain as to why depreciation should not be disallowed on such assets. The assessee replied that there was some error occurred due to different way of filing the tax audit report adopted by the auditor. It was submitted that certain assets were purchased between 1^st April to 30^th September and certain other assets were purchased between 1^st October 2017 to 31^st March

2018.

5. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee. He noted that the assessee has furnished a summary of the additions and their actual dates of purchases unit-wise. However, the assessee has not furnished even a single bill pertaining to these additions to make the submission authentic. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation of Rs.1,00,05,726/- since the assets according to him were not put to use to the tune of Rs.14,05,02,616/- which were purchased on 31.03.2018. The Assessing Officer, adopting the rate of interest @ 12% attributable to purchase of those assets, disallowed interest of Rs.1,68,60,314/-.

6. In appeal the assessee filed certain details based on which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. So far as the disallowance of depreciation is concerned, the Assessing Officer in the remand report submitted as under which has been reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in the body of the order:

7. So far as the disallowance of interest is concerned, the Assessing Officer in the remand report submitted as under which has been reproduced by the Ld.

CIT(A) / NFAC in the body of the order:

8. After considering the remand report of the Assessing Officer and the rejoinder of the assessee to such remand report, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the disallowance of depreciation made by the Assessing Officer, by observing as under:

9. Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the interest disallowed by the Assessing Officer by observing as under:

10. A