INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2019-20)

M/s. Him Urja Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Asst Director of Income, 503,504,505, Gedore CPC, Bengaluru House, 5^th Floor, 51-52, Nehru Place, New Delhi-

110019 (Appellant) (Respondent)

PAN:AAACH7036E Assessee by : Shri Gautam Jain, Adv Shri Parth Singhal, Adv Shri Lalit Mohan, CA Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 13/01/2025 Date of pronouncement 29/01/2025

O R D E R

PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.:

1. The appeal in ITA No.3105/Del/2023 for AY 2019-20, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as „ld. CIT(A)‟, in short] in Appeal No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023- 24/1056841020(1) dated 06.10.2023 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) dated 18.05.2020 by the ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as „ld. AO‟).

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

“1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that intimation dated 18.05.2020 was made without granting opportunity much less fair meaningful and effective opportunity and therefore such an intimation is otherwise vitiated.

2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that intimation dated 18.05.2020 is without reasons and therefore unreasonable is otherwise a nullity.

3. That even otherwise the following adjustment so made in intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act are debatable and contentious issues and thus untenable:

Sr.No. Adjustment made Amount (Rs.)

i. Disallowance of provisions for deferred tax (1,32,34,691/-)

while computing book profits u/s 115JB of the Act ii Disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 801A 7,54,56,766/-

of the Act Iii Disallowance by invoking provision of section 1,43,692/-

2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act Total 6,23,65,767

4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred both in law and on facts in upholding disallowance of Rs. 1,43,692/- by invoking provision of section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act in an intimation dated 18.05.2020 u/s

143(1) of the Act.

5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the disallowance of provisions for deferred tax of (Rs. 1,32,34,691/-) while computing book profits u/s 115JB of the Act which is exfacie, illegal, invalid and untenable.

6. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding a disallowance of claim of deduction of Rs. 7,54,56,766/- u/s

801A of the Act.

6.1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has failed to appreciate that return of income has been furnished by the appellant within the due date in terms of section 139(1) read with section 139(4) of the Act and therefore disallowance is patently misconceived, misplaced and untenable.

6.2 That various findings and observations recorded by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are based on surmises, conjectures and suspicion; and factually incorrect, legally misconceived and, infact in disregard of binding judgment of jurisdictional High Court and, thus untenable.”

3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is engaged in the business of generation of hydro-electricity. The power project owned by the assessee is situated at village Vanala in Chamoli district of Uttrakhand. The entire power generated from the said project is sold to Uttrakhand Power Corporation Limited (UPCL). For the purpose of better understanding of the issues in dispute raised by the assessee, the following list of gists