IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER &

SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.453/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19)

Adani Power Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner of (Previously known as Adani Power Income Tax, Maharashtra Ltd. now amalgamated Ahmedabad-1 with Adani Power Ltd.), 1, Adani House, Nr. Mithakhali Six Roads, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-

380009 [PAN No.AABCA2957L]

(Appellant) .. (Respondent Appellant by : Shri Biren Shah on behalf of Shri Manish J Shah, A.R.

Respondent by: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT DR Date of Hearing 21.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement 23.01.2025

O R D E R

PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (in short “Ld. PCIT”), Ahmedabad-1 vide order dated 30.03.2023 passed for A.Y.

2018-19.

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

“1. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case, the impugned order u/s. 263 passed by Ld. CIT is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.

2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case, the Ld. CIT has erred in holding that the assessment order was passed without examining facts of the case and on that ground, invoking provisions of Section-

263 of the Income Tax Act.

2.1 The Ld. CIT has failed to appreciate that the appellant has submitted all relevant details during assessment proceeding which are on record of Ld.

Assessing Officer and he duly applied his mind and not made disallowance of CSR expenditure amounting to Rs.99,10,385/-. Thus, the assessment order was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

2.2 The Ld. CIT has failed to appreciate that the appellant has submitted all relevant details during assessment proceeding which are on record of Ld. Assessing Officer and he duly applied his mind and not made disallowance of Foreign Exchange Fluctuation loss of Rs.9,52,38,730/-. Thus, the assessment order was not erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue.

3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case, the Ld. PCIT is not justified in ignoring decision of Jurisdictional High Court pronounced in appellant’s own case and group concern deciding issue of CSR in favour of appellant.

4. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case, the order passed by the Ld. CIT may please be held to be unjustified, unwarranted and may please be quashed.

5. The appellant craves leave to add to amend or to raise any further grounds of appeal as case may arise.”

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

“1. On facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case, Ld. PCIT has erred in passing order in the name of a non-existing entity, though duly intimated by the assessee during the revision proceedings, therefore, the order passed by PCIT deserves to be quashed.

2. The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend or to raise any further grounds of appeal as case may arise.”

4. The brief facts of the case are that the PCIT observed that on examination of assessment records, it was noticed that assessee had debited a sum of Rs. 1.47 crores on account of CSR activities in the Profit & Loss Account. However, as perused of the computation of income filed by the assessee, Ld. PCIT observed that only an amount of Rs. 47,80,840/- was added back to the total income, for the year under consideration. The PCIT observed that the case of the assessee was assessed as a business entity and therefore, as per provision of Section 37(1) of the Act, the whole of CSR expenses amounting to Rs. 1.47 crores should have been disallowed. Therefore, PCIT held that the excess amount of Rs. 99,10,385/- debited on account of CSR expenses was required to be disallowed by the Assessing Officer and failure to do so made the assessment order as being erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Rev