VIR ALLOYS AND STEEL COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 11(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

These appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders, both dated 11.02.2025, passed by the Ld.
Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal
Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment years 2012-
13 and 2013-14 respectively. As common issues-in-dispute are involved in these appeals and therefore, same were heard together and disposed off by convenience.
2. Briefly stated, t
13 are that the asse declaring total inco completed under S
(hereinafter referred total income at ₹57,1
by issuance of no 30.05.2018. During
Officer raised a spec should not be restr accordance with the explanation was sub provided multiple op order dated 11.10.2
additional depreciatio
30% claimed by the assessee was engaged of ingots and casting goods manufacturin relevant finding of th
“In response assessee p
06.09.2018. A Vir Alloys an ITA No.

y way of this consolidated fo the facts pertaining to Assessm essee filed its return of income ome of ₹57,04,372/-. The a ection 143(3) of the Income- to as "the Act") on 16.03.201
16,548/-. Subsequently, the cas otice under Section 148 of g reassessment proceedings, cific query as to why deprecia ricted to 15% of the written e applicable Income-tax Rules bmitted by the assessee, despi pportunities. Consequently, th
2018 passed under Section on of ₹37,41,179/-, reducing th e assessee to 15%, on the g d in recycling of steel scrap and gs — not in the business of ru g, where the higher rate wou e Assessing Officer is reproduce to the notice issued u/s. 142(1) on 25.08
referred adjournment vide letter
Adjournment was granted up to 17.09.2
nd Steel Company Pvt. Ltd
2
. 2489 & 2557/MUM/2025
for the sake of ment Year 2012–
on 30.09.2012, ssessment was -tax Act, 1961
15, determining se was reopened the Act dated the Assessing ation on moulds down value, in s. However, no ite having been he reassessment
147 disallowed he rate from the round that the d manufacturing ubber or plastic uld apply.. The ed as under:
8.2018
dated
20,18. Assessee ag
18.09.2018 f same another fixing hearing requested to p produce any a lapse of one
25.08.2018. Therefore a f notice issued depreciation m
Act. However this regard.
Therefore in deprecation o recycling of s allowed @ 15
the assessee claimed by as De
Less:
De

Di
3. On appeal, the reassessment and t however, upheld th respect of the depre failed to submit any moulds used had a qualified as consum depreciation. The Ld the Assessing Officer
“4.4 Now c challenged th
Vir Alloys an ITA No.

gain sought adjournment vide letter filed in tapal of this office. In response r notice u/s. 142(1) was issued on 19.09
g on 26.09.2018 & assessee was once provide details. The assessee however d details/explanation till 28.09.2018 even e month after issuance of notice u/s. 142
final opportunity was given to assessee d u/s. (1) on 29.09.2018 to explain may not be restricted to 15% as provided r no explanation was offered by assess view of the clear provisions of IT on moulds used be assessee in its busin steel scrape and manufacturing of ing
5% instead of depreciation claimed @ 30
and additional depreciation of Rs. 37,4
ssessee as worked out below is disallowe
Particular
Amo epreciation claimed @30%
74,82,35
epreciation allowable @15%
37,41,17
isallowance Rs.
37,41,17
assessee challenged both the the disallowance on merits. T e reassessment as well as th eciation claim, it was held tha documentary evidence to demo life span of less than one yea ables warranting revenue treat d. CIT(A) accordingly confirmed observing as under:
coming to the next ground, the app he disallowance towards claim of deprec nd Steel Company Pvt. Ltd
3
. 2489 & 2557/MUM/2025
dated to the 9.2018
again did not n after
2(1) on e vide why in the see in Rules ness of gots is 0% by 41,179
ed.
unt
57
79
79
e validity of the The Ld. CIT(A), he addition. In at the assessee nstrate that the ar, or that they tment or higher the findings of pellant ciation amount of Rs assessee ha though highe moulds used appellant was scrape & ma case, deprecia offered no exp proceedings.
appellant sub steel industry nature of item thereby asses revenue expen claimed depr failed to file that the mould of recycling o castings. The findings of depreciation appellant bef factual weigh and are not fo assessing off appeal relatin
3.1 On the issue of observed that the reasons, with due ap the law. It was furth had been followed, assessee on juri i
Relevant part of his d
“4.3 It has b appellant tha proceedings.
allegation we assessment reopening w
Vir Alloys an ITA No.

s.37,41,179/-. The AO has observed th as claimed depreciation on moulds at r depreciation @30% is allowable only o in the rubber and plastic goods factories s involved in the business of recycling of anufacturing ingots and castings and in ation was allowable @ 15%. The assesse planation in this regard during the asses
During the appellate proceedings, bmitted that the usable life of moulds y is less than one year and moulds a ms of stores and consumables in this ind ssee should claim the purchase of moul nses instead of fixed assets and instead reciation only @30%. But the appellan any documentary evidence which can ds are usable only for one year in the bus of steel scrape & manufacturing ingots refore, due to lack of evidence, 1 side wi the AO with respect to disallowan claimed. The evidence furnished by fore me in the form of reply do not carr ht found during the assessment procee ound to be substantial enough to controve fficer's findings. Consequently, Groun ng to this issue stands dismissed.”
the validity of the reassessmen reopening was carried out pproval and within the period p her held that the principles of and therefore, the objections iction and limitation were de decision is reproduced as under been noticed from the grounds filed b at he has objected to the validity of reop
The facts of the case in the light of the ere carefully considered. As per the conte order, it is evident that the reason were correctly recorded, necessary app nd Steel Company Pvt. Ltd
4
. 2489 & 2557/MUM/2025
at the t 30%
on the s. The f steel n such ee has sment
, the in the are in dustry, lds as it has nt has prove siness s and ith the nce of y the ry the edings ert the ds of t, the Ld. CIT(A) after recording rescribed under f natural justice s raised by the evoid of merit.
:
by the pening above ents of ns for proval obtained, ser had also p assessment.
adequate opp assessment o been duly co of appeal ar mechanical fa legality of reop
4. We have heard perused the materia disallowance, it is n evidence either durin
Ld. CIT(A) to substan
30% was allowable in However, before us, l that necessary docu claim and requested present the relevant m
4.1 Considering th interest of justice, w the file of the Ld. CIT to depreciation, af opportunity to submi
4.2 Insofar as the v note that the assesse reopening on the ba
Vir Alloys an ITA No.

rved the notice within the stipulated tim provided the reasons for reopening
Further, Assessing Officer has pro portunity to the appellant before completin order and the Principles of Natural Justice mplied. Therefore, the corresponding gro re found to be unsubstantiated, made fashion and hence all the grounds rela opening stands dismissed.”
d the rival submissions of th al on record. As regards the noted that the assessee did n ng the reassessment proceeding ntiate its claim that depreciatio n respect of moulds used in its l learned counsel for the assessee uments can now be furnished d that one more opportunity material.
e totality of the circumstance we deem it appropriate to restor
T(A) for a fresh adjudication of th fter affording the assessee it supporting documentary evide validity of the reassessment is ee had raised a specific ground asis that the notice under Se nd Steel Company Pvt. Ltd
5
. 2489 & 2557/MUM/2025
me and g the ovided ng the e have rounds e in a ted to he parties and e merits of the ot produce any gs or before the on at the rate of line of business.
e has submitted to support the be granted to es, and in the re the matter to he issue relating a reasonable ence.
s concerned, we challenging the ection 148 was issued beyond four y year, and that there disclose fully and assessment. However this contention in te
Act. Since the matte appropriate to resto adjudication afresh, the assessee’s subm disclosure.
5. The grounds ra
14 are identical to th
2012–13. According grounds in the appea the Ld. CIT(A) to be d
6. In the result, bo statistical purposes, w
Order pronoun (KAVITHA RA
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 17/07/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.

Vir Alloys an ITA No.

years from the end of the relev was no failure on the part of truly all material facts durin r, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) ha erms of the first proviso to Sec r is being remanded on merits ore this ground also to the in accordance with law and a missions on the aspect of limi aised in the appeal for Assessm hose raised in the appeal for A gly, following our findings he al for AY 2013–14 are also resto decided afresh, mutatis mutandis oth appeals of the assessee a with directions as aforesaid.
ced in the open Court on 17/0
/-
S
AJAGOPAL)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA nd Steel Company Pvt. Ltd
6
. 2489 & 2557/MUM/2025
vant assessment the assessee to ng the original as not examined ction 147 of the , we consider it Ld. CIT(A) for after considering itation and full ment Year 2013–
Assessment Year ereinabove, the ored to the file of s.
are allowed for 07/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

Vir Alloys an ITA No.

ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu nd Steel Company Pvt. Ltd
7
. 2489 & 2557/MUM/2025
R, gistrar) umbai