GUJARAT STATE AVIATION INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WAD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR.BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s. Gujarat State Aviation Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Infrastructure Company Ward-2(1)(1), Limited, Ahmedabad. Mro Complex, Government of Gujarat, Nr. Torrent Sub Station, SVPI Airport, Shahibaug, Ahmedabad-380004. [PAN No. AADCG8945Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Appellant by : Shri Parin Shah, AR Respondent by: Adjournment Application filed Date of Hearing 15.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 17.04.2025 O R D E R DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT:

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi vide order dated 13.11.2024 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. Asst.Year 2017-18 - 2– 2. The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)-National Faceless Appeal Centre ['the CIT(A)'] erred in passing the Order without application of mind to the fact of the case and legal provisions and uploading the action of the Income-tax Officer-Ward 2(1)(1)- Ahmedabad ('the Ld. AO).

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that there is no mistake apparent from the record which can be rectified under section 154 of the Act, for want of the irrelevant and uncalled documentary evidences, without appreciating the facts that: a. In the intimation u/s 143(1), the net profit of Rs. 1,44,77,479/- has been considered instead of Nil profit as per books of accounts declared in (item 45 of part A of P&L in ITR Form-6) the return of income filed. In fact Rs. 1,44,77,479/- is mentioned at item 44 of part A of P&L in ITR Form-6 as "Depreciation and amortisation". b. The disallowance of 1,23,689 made u/s 37 in the intimation under section 143(1) had already been made u/s 28 to 44DA in return of Income filed and accepted in the intimation also. Hence, it has resulted in double disallowance of same expenditure in two different sections. 3. Your appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or to amend all or any of the grounds before the final hearing.

3. At the outset, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the depreciation claim by the assessee has been wrongly disallowed and prayed that given an opportunity, the matter would be referred before the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee fairly submitted that the matter needs rectification at the level of the Assessing Officer, after going into the amount of depreciation claimed by the assessee. Hence, the matter is hereby referred to the Asst.Year 2017-18 - 3– Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for examination and to pass an order.