ECSTASY BUSINESS PARK COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMTED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, CPC

The Ld. AR further submitted that an amount of Rs.10,35,981/- represented reimbursement of electricity charges. The assessee had provided space on rent to a telecom tower company, which consumed electricity from the common meter of the society and reimbursed the corresponding electricity charges. According to the Ld. AR, the said reimbursement was inadvertently reflected in Schedule BP as “Contract Income”. It was contended that the amount was merely recovery of expenditure incurred by the assessee and did not contain any income or profit element. The Ld. AR accordingly prayed that the clerical difference of Rs.9,278/- be rectified, the electricity reimbursement be treated as recovery of expenses and the members' surplus be accepted as exempt on the principle of mutuality. 6. Per contra, the Ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had duly examined the claim of the assessee and had already granted appropriate relief in respect of the mismatch relating to the exempt income, subject to verification by the Ld. AO. It was further contended that the amount shown by the assessee itself as “Contract Income” could not be treated as exempt merely on the basis of a subsequent explanation that the same represented reimbursement of electricity expenditure. The Ld. DR accordingly prayed that the impugned appellate order be upheld. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The principal grievance of the assessee relates to the treatment of the members' contribution and the amount of Rs.10,35,981/- claimed before us to be reimbursement of electricity charges. The record indicates that the original adjustment arose from the mismatch in the figures disclosed in the relevant schedules of the return. The assessee itself states that the reimbursement of electricity expenses of Rs.10,35,981/- had been shown under Schedule BP– Exempt Income as “Contract Income”. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has considered the claim relating to the technical mismatch and has directed the Ld. AO to verify the assessee's claim of exempt income and to grant consequential effect if the claim is found correct. However, insofar as the contract income is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the claim of exemption. For completeness, the relevant findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) in paragraphs 10.1 and 10.2 of the impugned appellate order are reproduced hereunder: “10.1 Accordingly, as per the facts of the case and judicial pronouncements in similar cases, as far as the issue related to technical error of mismatch between the total amounts of exempt Income in Schedule BP and Schedule EI are concerned, the same is allowed subject to the discussion in para 9.7 above. Accordingly, AO is directed to verify the claim of appellant in respect of Income claimed as exempt and in case, found true, give effect accordingly. 10.2. In view of the above grounds of appeal and submissions made by the appellant, the appeal of appellant is partly allowed.” 8. On consideration of the material placed before us, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has already granted appropriate relief in respect of the technical mismatch, subject to verification by the Ld. AO. With regard to the balance amount claimed as reimbursement of electricity expenses, the assessee had admittedly disclosed the amount in the return as “Contract Income”. The explanation now advanced does not, on the material placed before us, warrant interference with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned appellate order calling for our interference. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.4332 & 4333/Mum/2026 are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st day of August 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai,िदनांक �Dated: 31/08/2026 SAUMYA Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ� �The Appellant , 2. �ितवादी � The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयु� CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध ,आय .अपी .अिध ,.मुंबई �DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाइल �Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, MUMBAI