ELSAMEX MAINTENANCE SERVICES LIMITED,PRAHLADNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं /ITA No.883/Ahd/2026 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Elsamex Maintenance Services Ltd., DCIT 1207-1210, Shapath V, Beside Hotel बनाम/ Circle Gandhinagar, v/s. Crown Plaza, Prahladnagar, S.G. Gandhinagar Highway, Ahmedabad, Gujarat-380015 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AADCE5042Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Bhupal Rapelli, AR Revenue by : Shri Arvind Kumar Namdeo, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 22/07/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 29/07/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] dated 30/01/2026 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned assessment order dated 29 December 2017 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act is void ab initio as the statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 8 April 2016 by Income Tax Officer Ward 8(2) Delhi ('ITO'), who lacked the pecuniary jurisdiction to issue such notice as per CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 [F. NO. 187/12/2010-IT(A- 1)]. Elsamex Maintenance Services Ltd. vs. DCIT

It is hereby prayed that since the assessment order pursuant to impugned notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is issued by the ITO having no pecuniary jurisdiction over the appellant and in violation to CBDT Instruction is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-03 (‘Learned AO’) is bad in law, as admittedly, the case was selected for limited scrutiny on the limited issue of examination of other expenses claimed and it was converted to a complete scrutiny only on a mere suspicion and for roving enquiries. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO erred in converting the case from 'Limited Scrutiny' to 'Complete Scrutiny at the end of the limitation period for assessment in arbitrary manner, is unjustified, and reflects a colorable exercise of power. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC ['CIT(A)'] has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 18,16,553 made by Learned AO in respect of reconciliation difference between amounts reflected in Form 26AS and income as per books of Account. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the reasons for the difference being inclusion of mobilisation advances, service tax component as gross receipts in Form 26A5 and arbitrarily dismissed the ground of the appellant. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 1,07,05,568/- made by Learned AO under section 37(1) in respect of plantation expenses incurred for the purpose of business of the appellant. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that plantation expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, arising out of specific contractual obligations inherent to the Appellant's nature of business and thus possessed a direct nexus with the business activities. 6. The Appellant Company craves leave to add, alter, modify or withdraw all or any of the above grounds of appeal either before or during the course of the appellate proceedings” 3. A perusal of the above grounds would reveal that the assessee has taken as many as six grounds of appeal, out of which Ground No. 1 to 3 are legal grounds, Ground No. 4 & 5 are relating to the validity of Elsamex Maintenance Services Ltd. vs. DCIT

addition made by the Assessing Officer (in short “the AO”) on merits and Ground No. 6 is general.

business of construction and maintenance of roads and had done plantation on the road sides. The AO, however, disallowed the expenditure claim observing that the assessee had not furnished the requisite evidences for the purpose of verification of the aforesaid expenditure. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that the AO has given very short time to the assessee to furnish the necessary evidences. 7. Considering the above submissions, the impugned order of the CIT(A) on this issue is also set-aside and the matter restored to the file of the AO for decision afresh on this issue. The AO will give proper and adequate opportunity to the assessee to furnish the necessary evidences on this issue and thereafter to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. 8. So far as the legal grounds raised by the assessee that is Ground No. 1 to 3 are concerned, the same are not adjudicated at this stage and are kept open with liberty to the assessee to raise the same at appropriate stage, if need be. Ground No. 6 is general is general in nature. 9. With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 29/07/2026. (Narendra Prasad Sinha) Judicial Member अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 29/07/2025Tanmay, Sr. P.S. Elsamex Maintenance Services Ltd. vs. DCIT

आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant 2. ""थ" / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु" अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)-(NFAC) 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद /DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. , , 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt.