UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)- 2(3), MUMBAI

PER NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the orders even dated 17.06.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National
Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income
Tax Act, 1961. (in short ‘the Act’) for A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2016-17. 2. As the issues involved in the appeals under consideration are identical, therefore, for the sake of brevity, the same were heard together and are being disposed by this composite order by taking into consideration ITA no. 5391/M/2025 as a lead case and result of the same, should be applicable mutatis mutandis to both the appeals under consideration.

ITA Nos. 5391 & 5392/Mum/2025
University of Mumbai

2
3. Coming to ITA No. 5391/Mum/2025 it is observed that though the assessee preferred first appeal against the assessment order dated
08.03.2026 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, whereby the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 16,69,13,980/- while disallowing the exemption claimed by the assessee under section 10(23C)
(iiiab) of the Act and not granting the exemption under section 11(1)(a) of the Act, however, despite of affording various opportunities by the Ld.
Commissioner, the assessee made no compliance and, therefore, in the constrained circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner decided the appeal of the assessee as ex-parte and ultimately dismissed the same, affirming the assessment order.
4. Thus, the assessee being aggrieved has preferred instant appeal.
The assessee failed to establish any plausible reason for non-appearance before the Ld. Commissioner, however, submitted that lenient view may be taken and one opportunity may be last and final, be provided to the assessee, so that the assessee should be able to demonstrate its case by filing relevant submissions and documents before the Ld. Commissioner.
5. On the contrary, the Ld. DR refuted the claim of the assessee.
6. We have considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and rival contentions of the parties. Admittedly the issue involved also remained to be adjudicated in its right perspective and proper manner, specifically in the absence of relevant submissions and documents, which the assessee admittedly failed to file. Thus, considering the said facts and circumstances and non-compliance by the assessee and for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, we are inclined to remand the case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, however, subject to deposit of Rs. 11,000/- in the Revenue Department under ‘other heads’ within 30 days of the date of order. Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of Ld.
Commissioner for decision afresh in the aforesaid terms, suffice it to say

ITA Nos. 5391 & 5392/Mum/2025
University of Mumbai

3
by affording a reasonable opportunity being heard to the assessee. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Mumbai,
Biswajit

Copy to:

////

By Order