MAHADHAN AGRITECH LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SMARTECHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD ),MUMBAI V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-50, MUMBAI

MA 156/MUM/2025

AI Insights

Mahadhan Agritech Limited filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification of the Tribunal's earlier order concerning the depreciation claims on goodwill/intangible assets and provisions for doubtful debts. The company argued that these claims were not new and had been previously filed in a revised return during the scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3). The Tribunal, however, noted that the claims were treated as fresh in the proceedings under Section 153A following a search and seizure operation, and thus were not eligible for deduction. The Tribunal dismissed the application, stating that there was no inadvertent error in the original decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 840348 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2025
• Other Referred Cases: SEW Infrastructure Limited
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KRISHNA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: MADHUR AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Revised return; Bad and doubtful debts; Depreciation; Capital expenditure; TDS; Search and seizure; Scheme of amalgamation
• Section: 143(3); 132; 153A; 115JB; 139(5)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) MA No.156/MUM/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 2226/MUM/2024) Assessment Years: 2015-16 Mahadhan Agritech Limited (Formerly known as Smartchem Technologies LTD) Sai Hira, Survey NO. 93, Mundhwa, Pune-411036. Vs. DCIT Cen 8(1), 656, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai. PAN NO. AACCA 5046 P Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Madhur Agrawal Department by : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 12/12/2025 Date of pronouncement : 23/02/2026 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM By way of this Miscellaneous Application, the Applicant/Assessee seeks rectification of the order passed by this Tribunal in ITA No.2226/MUM/2024 on February 24, 2025, under the provisions of Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for Assessment year 2015-16. Printed from counselvise.com 2. The Learned Counsel for the assessee drawn our attention to the issues raised in the Miscellaneous Application relevant part of this is reproduced as under: “Ground No. 1 (a), 1(b) & 1(c) & Ground No. 2 on the basis of erroneous facts that the Applicant has lodged a fresh claim of depreciation on goodwill/intangible assets in the return of income filed u/s 153A dated 29 2.1 The Hon'ble ITAT has vide in para no. 4.2 noted the fact that a scheme of arrangement was entered into between Deepak Fertilisers and Petrochemical ('DFPCL'), SCM Fertichem Private Limited and the Applicant, which scheme was duly approved by the Hon'ble NCLT vide order dated 30 Ammonium Nitrate undertaking (TAN), being undertaking of DFPCL was transferred to the Applicant with effect from 01 appointed date 2.2 The Hon'ble ITAT further noted in para 2.1 of the order that, in order to give effect to the duly approv Applicant vide letter dated 22 income along with the revised accounts & Tax Audit Report, during the course of scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) wherein, among others, it has lodged the clai on account of the duly approved scheme of arrangement. However, the AO did not consider the said revised computation while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) 2.4 That in the return of income fi the Applicant reiterated the said revised computation and continued to claim, inter-alia, depreciation on goodwill & intangible assets. 2.5 However, while noting the arguments in para 4.9 and adjudicating the issue at P Honour by an inadvertent error held that the Applicant had lodged a fresh claim of depreciation on goodwill/intangible assets in the return of income filed u/s 153A on 29 considering the facts noted in para 2.1 of the order and what is reiterated above, it is clear that the claim of depreciation on goodwill was claimed in return filed on 22 in the original assessment proceedings. Henc that the claim cannot be said to be a fresh claim. Furthermore, Your Honour concluded that the Applicant is permitted to withdraw the claim, which is also an inadvertent error as the applicant has already Mahadhan Agritech Limited MA No. The Learned Counsel for the assessee drawn our attention to the issues raised in the Miscellaneous Application relevant part of this is reproduced as under: “Ground No. 1 (a), 1(b) & 1(c) & Ground No. 2 - Decision rendered asis of erroneous facts that the Applicant has lodged a fresh claim of depreciation on goodwill/intangible assets in the return of income filed u/s 153A dated 29-01-2020. 2.1 The Hon'ble ITAT has vide in para no. 4.2 noted the fact that a arrangement was entered into between Deepak Fertilisers and Petrochemical ('DFPCL'), SCM Fertichem Private Limited and the Applicant, which scheme was duly approved by the Hon'ble NCLT vide order dated 30-03-2017. As a result, Fertilizer and Technical nium Nitrate undertaking (TAN), being undertaking of DFPCL was transferred to the Applicant with effect from 01-01 appointed date. 2.2 The Hon'ble ITAT further noted in para 2.1 of the order that, in order to give effect to the duly approved scheme of arrangement, the Applicant vide letter dated 22-12-2017 filed a revised computation of income along with the revised accounts & Tax Audit Report, during the course of scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) wherein, among others, it has lodged the claim of depreciation on goodwill/intangible assets arising on account of the duly approved scheme of arrangement. However, the AO did not consider the said revised computation while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3). 2.4 That in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 153A, the Applicant reiterated the said revised computation and continued to alia, depreciation on goodwill & intangible assets. 5 However, while noting the arguments in para 4.9 and adjudicating the issue at Para 4.10 & Para 4.11 at Pg. No. 13-15 of the order, your Honour by an inadvertent error held that the Applicant had lodged a fresh claim of depreciation on goodwill/intangible assets in the return of income filed u/s 153A on 29-01-2020. The Applicant submi considering the facts noted in para 2.1 of the order and what is reiterated above, it is clear that the claim of depreciation on goodwill was claimed in return filed on 22-12-2017 before the Assessing officer in the original assessment proceedings. Hence, the Applicant submits that the claim cannot be said to be a fresh claim. Furthermore, Your Honour concluded that the Applicant is permitted to withdraw the claim, which is also an inadvertent error as the applicant has already Mahadhan Agritech Limited 2 A No. 156/MUM/2025 The Learned Counsel for the assessee drawn our attention to the issues raised in the Miscellaneous Application relevant Decision rendered asis of erroneous facts that the Applicant has lodged a fresh claim of depreciation on goodwill/intangible assets in the 2020. 2.1 The Hon'ble ITAT has vide in para no. 4.2 noted the fact that a arrangement was entered into between Deepak Fertilisers and Petrochemical ('DFPCL'), SCM Fertichem Private Limited and the Applicant, which scheme was duly approved by the Hon'ble NCLT vide 2017. As a result, Fertilizer and Technical nium Nitrate undertaking (TAN), being undertaking of DFPCL was 01-2015, being the 2.2 The Hon'ble ITAT further noted in para 2.1 of the order that, in order ed scheme of arrangement, the 2017 filed a revised computation of income along with the revised accounts & Tax Audit Report, during the course of scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) wherein, among others, it has m of depreciation on goodwill/intangible assets arising on account of the duly approved scheme of arrangement. However, the AO did not consider the said revised computation while passing the led in response to notice u/s 153A, the Applicant reiterated the said revised computation and continued to alia, depreciation on goodwill & intangible assets. 5 However, while noting the arguments in para 4.9 and adjudicating 15 of the order, your Honour by an inadvertent error held that the Applicant had lodged a fresh claim of depreciation on goodwill/intangible assets in the return 2020. The Applicant submits considering the facts noted in para 2.1 of the order and what is reiterated above, it is clear that the claim of depreciation on goodwill 2017 before the Assessing officer e, the Applicant submits that the claim cannot be said to be a fresh claim. Furthermore, Your Honour concluded that the Applicant is permitted to withdraw the claim, which is also an inadvertent error as the applicant has already Printed from counselvise.com made a claim on 22 does not arise. 2.6 That the applicant humbly submits that the aforesaid facts may have escaped the kind attention of your Honour. 2.7 That the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of -vs.- ACIT (2019) 420 ITR 339 (SC) income filed pursuant to the scheme of arrangement approved by the NCLT beyond the timeline prescribed u/s 139(5) is a hence, the department is obliged to assess the income of the as on the basis of the said revised return of income. 2.8 As per para no. 35 of the approved Scheme of arrangement, the company was entitled to revise its return of income pertaining to the Demerged Undertakings this Scheme and where necessary to give effect to this Scheme, even if the prescribed time limits for filing or revising such returns have lapsed without incurring any liability on account of interest, penalty or any other sum. 2.9 That in the afore before your Honour that the impugned order may please be rectified, and appropriate order may please be passed on the following issues a) Claim of depreciation on goodwill/intangible assets were not lodged for the first time in the return of income filed u/s 153A on 29 but was already lodged in the revised computation of income filed during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) vide letter dated 22-12-2017. The said claim is now the subject appeal before the CIT(A). As the claim for depreciation on goodwill was not allowed in the original assessment order, it is the subject matter of adjudication before CIT(A) and therefore, could not have gone into in by the assessing officer i Act. b) Without prejudice, whether incriminating material has been unearthed during the course of search on the issue of claim of depreciation on goodwill/intangible assets, when all the materials were available on record prior to search c) Adjudication of the claim of depreciation on goodwill/intangible assets on merit. 3.0 Ground No. 1 (e) & Ground No. 4 basis of erroneous facts that the Applicant has lodged a fresh claim in the retu Mahadhan Agritech Limited MA No. made a claim on 22-11-2017, then question of withdrawing such claim does not arise. 2.6 That the applicant humbly submits that the aforesaid facts may have escaped the kind attention of your Honour. 2.7 That the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalmia Power Ltd. 019) 420 ITR 339 (SC) has held that a revised return of income filed pursuant to the scheme of arrangement approved by the NCLT beyond the timeline prescribed u/s 139(5) is a hence, the department is obliged to assess the income of the as on the basis of the said revised return of income. As per para no. 35 of the approved Scheme of arrangement, the company was entitled to revise its return of income pertaining to the Demerged Undertakings as may be required for the implementati this Scheme and where necessary to give effect to this Scheme, even if the prescribed time limits for filing or revising such returns have lapsed without incurring any liability on account of interest, penalty or any 9 That in the aforesaid circumstances, the Applicant humbly prays before your Honour that the impugned order may please be rectified, and appropriate order may please be passed on the following issues a) Claim of depreciation on goodwill/intangible assets were not lodged or the first time in the return of income filed u/s 153A on 29 but was already lodged in the revised computation of income filed during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) vide letter -2017. The said claim is now the subject appeal before the CIT(A). As the claim for depreciation on goodwill was not allowed in the original assessment order, it is the subject matter of adjudication before CIT(A) and therefore, could not have gone into in by the assessing officer in the assessment proceedings u/s 153A of the b) Without prejudice, whether incriminating material has been unearthed during the course of search on the issue of claim of depreciation on goodwill/intangible assets, when all the materials were e on record prior to search c) Adjudication of the claim of depreciation on goodwill/intangible assets on merit. Ground No. 1 (e) & Ground No. 4-Decision rendered on the basis of erroneous facts that the Applicant has lodged a fresh claim in the return of income filed u/s 153A dated 29 Mahadhan Agritech Limited 3 A No. 156/MUM/2025 , then question of withdrawing such claim 2.6 That the applicant humbly submits that the aforesaid facts may Dalmia Power Ltd. has held that a revised return of income filed pursuant to the scheme of arrangement approved by the valid return and, hence, the department is obliged to assess the income of the assessee As per para no. 35 of the approved Scheme of arrangement, the company was entitled to revise its return of income pertaining to the may be required for the implementation of this Scheme and where necessary to give effect to this Scheme, even if the prescribed time limits for filing or revising such returns have lapsed without incurring any liability on account of interest, penalty or any said circumstances, the Applicant humbly prays before your Honour that the impugned order may please be rectified, and appropriate order may please be passed on the following issues- a) Claim of depreciation on goodwill/intangible assets were not lodged or the first time in the return of income filed u/s 153A on 29-01-2020 but was already lodged in the revised computation of income filed during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) vide letter 2017. The said claim is now the subject matter of the appeal before the CIT(A). As the claim for depreciation on goodwill was not allowed in the original assessment order, it is the subject matter of adjudication before CIT(A) and therefore, could not have gone into in by n the assessment proceedings u/s 153A of the b) Without prejudice, whether incriminating material has been unearthed during the course of search on the issue of claim of depreciation on goodwill/intangible assets, when all the materials were c) Adjudication of the claim of depreciation on goodwill/intangible Decision rendered on the basis of erroneous facts that the Applicant has lodged a fresh rn of income filed u/s 153A dated 29-01-2020 in Printed from counselvise.com respect of provision for doubtful debts in computing total income under the normal provisions of the Act 3.1 That in order to give effect to the scheme of arrangement duly approved by the Hon'ble NCLT vide o Applicant prepared a revised audited accounts provision for doubtful debts. In the revised computation of income filed vide letter dated 22 u/s 143(3), the a provision for doubtful debts under the normal provisions of the Act 3.2 That your Honour was kind enough to appreci Para 2 at Pg.No. computation of income vide letter dated 22 of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) to give effect to the duly approved scheme of arrangement 3.3 However, while noting the arguments in para no. 5 and adjudicating the issue at Para Honour by an inadvertent error held that the Applicant has made a fresh claim of provision for doubtful debts in the return of income filed u/s 153A on 29 noted in para 2.1 of the order and what is reiterated above, the claim of provision for doubtful debts was claimed in return of income filed on 22 12-2017 before the Assessing officer in the original assessment proceedings. Hence, the Applicant submits that the claim said to be a fresh claim. 1.4 That the Applicant humbly submits that the aforesaid facts may have escaped the kind attention of your Honour. 3.5 That in the aforesaid circumstances, the Applicant humbly prays before your Honour that the impugne and appropriate order may please be passed on the following issues a) Claim of provision for doubtful debts was not lodged for the first time in the return of income filed u/s 153A on 29 already lodged in the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) vide letter dated 22 12-2017. The said claim is now the subject matter of the appeal before the CIT(A). As the claim for provision for doubtful debts was not allowe of adjudication in by the assessing officer in the assessment proceedings u/s 153A of the Act. Mahadhan Agritech Limited MA No. respect of provision for doubtful debts in computing total income under the normal provisions of the Act 3.1 That in order to give effect to the scheme of arrangement duly approved by the Hon'ble NCLT vide order dated 30 Applicant prepared a revised audited accounts wherein it had debited provision for doubtful debts. In the revised computation of income filed vide letter dated 22-12-2017 during the course of scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3), the applicant, among others, have claimed deduction of provision for doubtful debts under the normal provisions of the Act 3.2 That your Honour was kind enough to appreciate the facts vide Para 2 at Pg.No.3 of the order, that the Applicant has filed revised omputation of income vide letter dated 22-12-20217, during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) to give effect to the duly approved scheme of arrangement. 3 However, while noting the arguments in para no. 5 and adjudicating the issue at Para 5.1 at Pg. 16-17 of the order, your Honour by an inadvertent error held that the Applicant has made a fresh claim of provision for doubtful debts in the return of income filed u/s 153A on 29-01-2020. The applicant submits considering the facts a 2.1 of the order and what is reiterated above, the claim of provision for doubtful debts was claimed in return of income filed on 22 2017 before the Assessing officer in the original assessment proceedings. Hence, the Applicant submits that the claim said to be a fresh claim. 1.4 That the Applicant humbly submits that the aforesaid facts may have escaped the kind attention of your Honour. 3.5 That in the aforesaid circumstances, the Applicant humbly prays before your Honour that the impugned order may please be rectified and appropriate order may please be passed on the following issues Claim of provision for doubtful debts was not lodged for the first time in the return of income filed u/s 153A on 29- already lodged in the revised computation of income filed during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) vide letter dated 22 2017. The said claim is now the subject matter of the appeal before the CIT(A). As the claim for provision for doubtful debts was not allowed in the original assessment order, it is the subject matter of adjudication before CIT(A) and therefore, could not have gone into in by the assessing officer in the assessment proceedings u/s 153A Mahadhan Agritech Limited 4 A No. 156/MUM/2025 respect of provision for doubtful debts in computing total 3.1 That in order to give effect to the scheme of arrangement duly rder dated 30-03-2017, the wherein it had debited provision for doubtful debts. In the revised computation of income filed 2017 during the course of scrutiny assessment pplicant, among others, have claimed deduction of provision for doubtful debts under the normal provisions of the Act. ate the facts vide 3 of the order, that the Applicant has filed revised 20217, during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) to give effect to the duly 3 However, while noting the arguments in para no. 5 and 17 of the order, your Honour by an inadvertent error held that the Applicant has made a fresh claim of provision for doubtful debts in the return of income filed 2020. The applicant submits considering the facts a 2.1 of the order and what is reiterated above, the claim of provision for doubtful debts was claimed in return of income filed on 22- 2017 before the Assessing officer in the original assessment proceedings. Hence, the Applicant submits that the claim cannot be 1.4 That the Applicant humbly submits that the aforesaid facts may 3.5 That in the aforesaid circumstances, the Applicant humbly prays d order may please be rectified and appropriate order may please be passed on the following issues - Claim of provision for doubtful debts was not lodged for the first -01-2020 but was revised computation of income filed during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) vide letter dated 22- 2017. The said claim is now the subject matter of the appeal before the CIT(A). As the claim for provision for doubtful debts was d in the original assessment order, it is the subject matter before CIT(A) and therefore, could not have gone into in by the assessing officer in the assessment proceedings u/s 153A Printed from counselvise.com b) Without prejudice, whether incriminating mate unearthed during the course of search on the issue of the claim of provision for doubtful debts, when all the materials were available on record prior to search. c) Adjudication of the issue of allowance of provision for doubtful debts under the normal provisions of the Act. 4.0 Ground No. 1 (a), 1(b) & 1(c) & Ground No. 5 rendered on the basis of e lodged a fresh claim of depreciation on goodwill/intangible assets while computing Book Profit u/s income filed u/s 153A dated 29 4.1 That the facts of the case remains the same as mentioned in Para 2.0 herein above except that the claim of depreciation on goodwill/intangible assets has also been lodged while computing Bo Profit u/s 115JB. 4.2 That your Honour by an inadvertent error stated at Para 9.2 at Pg. No. 28 of the order, that the Applicant has claimed depreciation on goodwill/intangible assets for the first time in the return of income filed u/s 153A dated 29 already lodged in the revised computation of income filed vide letter dated 22-12-2017 during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3). 4.3 That in the aforesaid circumstances, the Applicant humbly pra before your Honour that the impugned order may please be modified/corrected in line with the issues raised at Para 2.8 herein above. 5.0 In the aforesaid circumstances, the Applicant humbly prays that the order passed by your Honour may please be corre opportunity, including but not limited to physical hearing, may please be granted to the Applicant to represent the case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material on record the assessee is mainly aggrieved with regard to the claim of depreciation on the good will/ intangible assets, claim in respect of provision and claim in respect of depreciation on good Mahadhan Agritech Limited MA No. Without prejudice, whether incriminating mate unearthed during the course of search on the issue of the claim of provision for doubtful debts, when all the materials were available on record prior to search. Adjudication of the issue of allowance of provision for doubtful debts e normal provisions of the Act. Ground No. 1 (a), 1(b) & 1(c) & Ground No. 5 rendered on the basis of erroneous facts that the applicant has lodged a fresh claim of depreciation on goodwill/intangible assets while computing Book Profit u/s 1151B in the return of income filed u/s 153A dated 29-01-2020 4.1 That the facts of the case remains the same as mentioned in Para 2.0 herein above except that the claim of depreciation on goodwill/intangible assets has also been lodged while computing Bo Profit u/s 115JB. 4.2 That your Honour by an inadvertent error stated at Para 9.2 at Pg. No. 28 of the order, that the Applicant has claimed depreciation on goodwill/intangible assets for the first time in the return of income filed u/s 153A dated 29-01-2020 in-spite of the fact that the claim was already lodged in the revised computation of income filed vide letter -2017 during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 4.3 That in the aforesaid circumstances, the Applicant humbly pra before your Honour that the impugned order may please be modified/corrected in line with the issues raised at Para 2.8 herein 5.0 In the aforesaid circumstances, the Applicant humbly prays that the order passed by your Honour may please be corrected and appropriate opportunity, including but not limited to physical hearing, may please be granted to the Applicant to represent the case.” We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material on record. In the Miscellaneous the assessee is mainly aggrieved with regard to the claim of depreciation on the good will/ intangible assets, claim in respect of provision and claim in respect of depreciation on good Mahadhan Agritech Limited 5 A No. 156/MUM/2025 Without prejudice, whether incriminating material has been unearthed during the course of search on the issue of the claim of provision for doubtful debts, when all the materials were available Adjudication of the issue of allowance of provision for doubtful debts Ground No. 1 (a), 1(b) & 1(c) & Ground No. 5 - Decision rroneous facts that the applicant has lodged a fresh claim of depreciation on goodwill/intangible 1151B in the return of 4.1 That the facts of the case remains the same as mentioned in Para 2.0 herein above except that the claim of depreciation on goodwill/intangible assets has also been lodged while computing Book 4.2 That your Honour by an inadvertent error stated at Para 9.2 at Pg. No. 28 of the order, that the Applicant has claimed depreciation on goodwill/intangible assets for the first time in the return of income filed spite of the fact that the claim was already lodged in the revised computation of income filed vide letter 2017 during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 4.3 That in the aforesaid circumstances, the Applicant humbly prays before your Honour that the impugned order may please be modified/corrected in line with the issues raised at Para 2.8 herein 5.0 In the aforesaid circumstances, the Applicant humbly prays that the cted and appropriate opportunity, including but not limited to physical hearing, may please We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and n the Miscellaneous Application, the assessee is mainly aggrieved with regard to the claim of depreciation on the good will/ intangible assets, claim in respect of provision and claim in respect of depreciation on good Printed from counselvise.com will/intangible assets the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( in short the Act), which was made i the return of income filed u/s 153A Counsel for the assessee contended that said claim was already filed while filing the revised return during the course of the scrutiny proceedings and therefore the above claims made in the return u/s 153A and Tribunal has wrongly recorded the said claims as fresh claims and not adjudicated said claims i Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. SEW Infra Structure Limited (supra). 4. However, we note filing revised return on 22.12.2017 claim of depreciation including on goodwill etc., Assessing Officer however treated the said revised return filed by the assessee is non-est while passing the assessment order assessee challenging the above finding was stated to be pending before the Learned CIT the claim filed by the assessee in revised return was not accepted. On the basis of the contemporaneous position Tribunal, accordingly recorded the fact. 5. Further, it is the Learned Counsel for the assessee who argued the matter during the appellate proceeding himself submitted that said claims being fresh claims were not entitled to be allowed in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act. It is on the Mahadhan Agritech Limited MA No. will/intangible assets while computing good profits u/s 1 tax Act, 1961 ( in short the Act), which was made i the return of income filed u/s 153A of the Act. Counsel for the assessee contended that said claim was already filed while filing the revised return of income on 22.12.2017 during the course of the scrutiny proceedings and therefore the above claims made in the return u/s 153A was not fresh claim and Tribunal has wrongly recorded the said claims as fresh nd not adjudicated said claims in view of the decision al Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. SEW Infra e Limited (supra). note that Tribunal has duly recorded the fact of filing revised return on 22.12.2017, wherein the assessee filed claim of depreciation including on goodwill etc., fficer however treated the said revised return filed by est in law and did not take into consideration while passing the assessment order. The appeal filed by the sessee challenging the above finding was stated to be pending before the Learned CIT(A). In such circumstances, the claim filed by the assessee in revised return was not accepted. On the basis of the contemporaneous position cordingly recorded the fact. Further, it is the Learned Counsel for the assessee who argued the matter during the appellate proceeding himself submitted that said claims being fresh claims were not entitled to be allowed in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act. It is on the Mahadhan Agritech Limited 6 A No. 156/MUM/2025 while computing good profits u/s 115JB of tax Act, 1961 ( in short the Act), which was made in of the Act. The Learned Counsel for the assessee contended that said claim was already on 22.12.2017 during the course of the scrutiny proceedings and therefore the was not fresh claim and Tribunal has wrongly recorded the said claims as fresh n view of the decision by al Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. SEW Infra that Tribunal has duly recorded the fact of the assessee filed claim of depreciation including on goodwill etc., but the fficer however treated the said revised return filed by in law and did not take into consideration he appeal filed by the sessee challenging the above finding was stated to be pending the status of the claim filed by the assessee in revised return was not accepted. On the basis of the contemporaneous position, the Further, it is the Learned Counsel for the assessee who argued the matter during the appellate proceeding himself and submitted that said claims being fresh claims were not entitled to be allowed in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act. It is on the Printed from counselvise.com contention of the Learned Counsel who argued the matter the claims made in the ground of the assessee were not adjudicated being fresh claims not to be entertained in proceeding u/s 153A. The relevant fact recorded by the Tribunal in Para No.2 is reproduced for ready reference: “2. The briefly sated facts of the case are that the assessee originally filed its return of income e total income of Rs. under Section 143(1) Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny assessment. During the course of scrutiny assessment, on 22.12.2017, the assessee submitted a modified computation of income along with a revised return, wherein an enhanced claim of depreciation, including on goodwill, was made. revision was necessitated due to a scheme of amalgamation invol the Technical Ammonium duly sanctioned by the (NCLT) on 30.03.2017 subsequent to the filing of the original return of income. Howev said revised return was filed beyond the statutory period prescribed under the Act for revising returns. Consequently, the (AO) treated the revised return as non consideration while passing the 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2017. assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority challenging the non stated that th 2.1 Subsequently, a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 15.11.2018 on the assessee along with other entities forming part of Deepak Fertilizers Group'. Consequently, a notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 01.01.2020. In response to the notice u/s 153A of the Act, the assessee filed return of income on 29.01.2020 declaring the same income as computed in assessment the revised computation filed during original proceedings vide l 22/12/2017. In said return, the assessee claimed total losses at Rs.245,84,05,861/ intangibles i.e. goodwill acquired on account of purchase of \"Technical Ammonium Nitrate upon examination, questioned the legitimacy of the depreciation claimed on the intangibles, particularly the goodwill, which arose from the acquisition of a demerged entity from another related company. After considering ex Mahadhan Agritech Limited MA No. contention of the Learned Counsel who argued the matter the claims made in the ground of the assessee were not adjudicated eing fresh claims not to be entertained in proceeding u/s 153A. The relevant fact recorded by the Tribunal in Para No.2 is reproduced for ready reference: 2. The briefly sated facts of the case are that the assessee originally filed its return of income electronically on 30.11.2015, declar total income of Rs.4,25,66,100/-. Said return was duly processed under Section 143(1) Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny assessment. During the course of scrutiny assessment, on the assessee submitted a modified computation of income along with a revised return, wherein an enhanced claim of depreciation, including on goodwill, was made. The assessee asserted that such revision was necessitated due to a scheme of amalgamation invol the Technical Ammonium Nitrate and Fertilizers' unit, which had been duly sanctioned by the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 30.03.2017. Notably, this sanction was granted subsequent to the filing of the original return of income. Howev said revised return was filed beyond the statutory period prescribed under the Act for revising returns. Consequently, the Assessing Officer treated the revised return as non-est in law and did not take it into consideration while passing the assessment order under 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2017. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority challenging the non-consideration of the revised depreciation claim. It is stated that the said appeal is presently pending adjudication. 2.1 Subsequently, a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 15.11.2018 on the assessee along with other entities forming part of Deepak Fertilizers Group'. Consequently, a notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 01.01.2020. In response to the notice u/s 153A of the Act, the assessee filed return of income on 29.01.2020 declaring the same income as computed in assessment the revised computation filed during original proceedings vide l 22/12/2017. In said return, the assessee claimed total losses at Rs.245,84,05,861/- including the losses due to claim of depreciation on intangibles i.e. goodwill acquired on account of purchase of \"Technical Ammonium Nitrate and Fertilizers' unit. The Assessing Officer (AO), upon examination, questioned the legitimacy of the depreciation claimed on the intangibles, particularly the goodwill, which arose from the acquisition of a demerged entity from another related company. After considering extensive submissions, statements recorded during Mahadhan Agritech Limited 7 A No. 156/MUM/2025 contention of the Learned Counsel who argued the matter the claims made in the ground of the assessee were not adjudicated eing fresh claims not to be entertained in proceeding u/s 153A. The relevant fact recorded by the Tribunal in Para No.2 is 2. The briefly sated facts of the case are that the assessee originally lectronically on 30.11.2015, declaring a gross . Said return was duly processed under Section 143(1) Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny assessment. During the course of scrutiny assessment, on the assessee submitted a modified computation of income along with a revised return, wherein an enhanced claim of depreciation, The assessee asserted that such revision was necessitated due to a scheme of amalgamation involving Nitrate and Fertilizers' unit, which had been Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal Notably, this sanction was granted subsequent to the filing of the original return of income. However, the said revised return was filed beyond the statutory period prescribed Assessing Officer est in law and did not take it into assessment order under Section Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority consideration of the revised depreciation claim. It is e said appeal is presently pending adjudication. 2.1 Subsequently, a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 15.11.2018 on the assessee along with other entities forming part of Deepak Fertilizers Group'. Consequently, a notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 01.01.2020. In response to the notice u/s 153A of the Act, the assessee filed return of income on 29.01.2020 declaring the same income as computed in assessment the revised computation filed during original proceedings vide letter dated 22/12/2017. In said return, the assessee claimed total losses at including the losses due to claim of depreciation on intangibles i.e. goodwill acquired on account of purchase of \"Technical Assessing Officer (AO), upon examination, questioned the legitimacy of the depreciation claimed on the intangibles, particularly the goodwill, which arose from the acquisition of a demerged entity from another related company. tensive submissions, statements recorded during Printed from counselvise.com the search proceedings, and material seized, the AO concluded that the assessee was not eligible for depreciation on intangibles, inclu goodwill, amounting to made addition for inflated capital expenditure claimed by the assessee incurred through two entities namely' M/s Onshore Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Ray Construction Ltd' amounting to Rs.48,53,865/ on delayed payment of tax deducted at source (TDS) amounting to Rs.2,42,966/ Rs.30,00,000/ income u/s 153A of the Act on 25.07.2022 at Rs.22,69,46,622/ at Rs.1131,615,332/ under MAT provisions. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and assailed the assessment order on the validity of the reassessment as well as addi merit. However, could not succeed before the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We further note that i of depreciation on goodwill etc against the original assessment proceeding same will be subject to decision in those relevant to original assessment proceedings shall be followed in the present assessment proceeding u/s 153A of the Act or consequent Appellate proceedin assessee under revised those claims will become fresh claim in the return income filed u/s 153A and same would not be the Special Bench in the case of SE (supra). 7. The power of rectification u/s 254(2) is restricted to errors that are patent, obvious, and self re-appreciation of facts or a change of opinion on a debatable point of law. In the pre the status of the claims based on the AO’s subsisting order and Mahadhan Agritech Limited MA No. the search proceedings, and material seized, the AO concluded that the assessee was not eligible for depreciation on intangibles, inclu goodwill, amounting to Rs.221,71,03,313/--The Assessing Officer also made addition for inflated capital expenditure claimed by the assessee incurred through two entities namely' M/s Onshore Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Ray Construction Ltd' amounting to Rs.48,53,865/-. Further, the Assessing Officer also disallow on delayed payment of tax deducted at source (TDS) amounting to Rs.2,42,966/- and provision for doubtful debts amounting to Rs.30,00,000/-. In this manner, the Assessing Officer assessed total income u/s 153A of the Act on 25.07.2022 at Rs.22,69,46,622/- under normal provisions of the Act and book profit at Rs.1131,615,332/ under MAT provisions. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and assailed the assessment order on the validity of the reassessment as well as additions/disallowance on merit. However, could not succeed before the Ld. CIT(A). further note that in the case of the assessee of depreciation on goodwill etc are accepted by the Learned CIT against the original assessment proceeding, then merit of the same will be subject to decision in those Appellate relevant to original assessment proceedings and whatever results shall be followed in the present assessment proceeding u/s 153A of the Act or consequent Appellate proceedings. If the claim of the assessee under revised return is rejected, then also consequently se claims will become fresh claim in the return income filed u/s 153A and same would not be eligible following the decision of the Special Bench in the case of SEW Infra Structure Limited The power of rectification u/s 254(2) is restricted to errors patent, obvious, and self-evident. It does not extend to a appreciation of facts or a change of opinion on a debatable point of law. In the present case, the Tribunal correctly recorded the status of the claims based on the AO’s subsisting order and Mahadhan Agritech Limited 8 A No. 156/MUM/2025 the search proceedings, and material seized, the AO concluded that the assessee was not eligible for depreciation on intangibles, including The Assessing Officer also made addition for inflated capital expenditure claimed by the assessee incurred through two entities namely' M/s Onshore Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Ray Construction Ltd' amounting to Further, the Assessing Officer also disallowed interest on delayed payment of tax deducted at source (TDS) amounting to and provision for doubtful debts amounting to In this manner, the Assessing Officer assessed total income u/s 153A of the Act on 25.07.2022 at loss of under normal provisions of the Act and book profit at Rs.1131,615,332/ under MAT provisions. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and assailed the assessment order on tions/disallowance on merit. However, could not succeed before the Ld. CIT(A).” n the case of the assessee, if the claim are accepted by the Learned CIT(A) then merit of the Appellate proceedings and whatever results shall be followed in the present assessment proceeding u/s 153A gs. If the claim of the return is rejected, then also consequently, se claims will become fresh claim in the return income filed following the decision of W Infra Structure Limited The power of rectification u/s 254(2) is restricted to errors . It does not extend to a appreciation of facts or a change of opinion on a debatable sent case, the Tribunal correctly recorded the status of the claims based on the AO’s subsisting order and Printed from counselvise.com the concessions made by the authorized representative during the hearing. The Tribunal’s decision to decline adjudication of these claims in the Sect simultaneously being litigated in the original assessment stream—is a conscious judicial view, not an \"inadvertent error.\" A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which ca drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. 8. In view of the above contention apparent from the record in the order of the Tribunal. The Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is accordingly dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 23/02/2026 M. Ranganath Vittal , Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Mahadhan Agritech Limited MA No. the concessions made by the authorized representative during the hearing. The Tribunal’s decision to decline adjudication of these claims in the Section 153A proceedings—while they are simultaneously being litigated in the original assessment is a conscious judicial view, not an \"inadvertent error.\" A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. In view of the above contention, we do not find any mistake apparent from the record in the order of the Tribunal. The Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is accordingly ounced in the open Court on 23/02/2026. Sd/ (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Mahadhan Agritech Limited 9 A No. 156/MUM/2025 the concessions made by the authorized representative during the hearing. The Tribunal’s decision to decline adjudication of while they are simultaneously being litigated in the original assessment is a conscious judicial view, not an \"inadvertent error.\" A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent n be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be we do not find any mistake apparent from the record in the order of the Tribunal. The Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is accordingly /02/2026. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "