Amortized forex loss on convertible bonds for business is revenue expenditure allowable under Section 37(1); delayed PF/ESI contributions beyond statutory dates non-deductible despite timely return filing; reassessment additions independent of original assessment.

ORDER

PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M :

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”], Delhi, dated 28.07.2025, pertaining to the assessment year 2011-12.

2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under :

“1. The order of the CIT(A) passed u/s 250 of the Act dated 28-07-2025 is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding multiple additions made by AO without properly appreciating the facts of the case and appellant's submissions.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have well appreciated the fact that the AO erred in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act without new tangible material in his possession.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to fairly appreciate the fact that the AO already had this information available during the course of original proceedings and thus the reopening of the assessment just based on same information, which is bad in law.

5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the AO erred in issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act without there being any satisfactory reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.

6. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the period of four years from the end of the impugned assessment year as provided in the first proviso to section 149 of the Act, has expired on 31/03/2016 and that therefore, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is barred by limitation.

7. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to make a return u/s 139 or in response to notice issued u/s 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for completion of original assessment proceedings.

8. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the AO erred in not providing reasons for reopening of assessment, before completing the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act.

9. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in fairly considering the fact that the mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, was not at all issued by the AO before finalising the Assessment.

a) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have invalidated the entire assessment order as bad in law, because of the fact that the mandatory initial notice was not given before finalising the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act.

b) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have annulled the assessment order as bad in law basing on the legal precedents clearly pronouncing that an assessment order passed on scrutiny, without issuing first notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is invalid.

10. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance towards FCCB expenditure of Rs. 7,30,66,667/-, which is incorrect and not justified.

11. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellant Company has restated the Bonds at the exchange rates prevailing at the year end and the difference out of such restatement is transferred to "Foreign Currency Monetary Item Translation Difference Account, to be written off over a period of 3 years.

12 The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Appellant Company has transferred 1/3 of the difference amount to Profit and Loss Account under the head Gain/Loss account during the Financial Year 2008-09 by following the Notification issued by Ministry of Corporate affairs on 31" March, 2009 Vide notification No. G.S.R. 225(E) regarding foreign exchange loss,