SACHIN NOTIFIED AREA,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SURAT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed in effect of the Section 263 orders, which were subsequently set aside by the Tribunal, does not survive. Therefore, the appeal challenging this assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order becomes infructuous.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed exemption under Section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment and made additions for disallowed exemption and FDR interest. The CIT(A) confirmed these additions.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessment order, based on Section 263 orders that were later set aside, is valid. The eligibility of the assessee for deduction under Section 10(20) and the taxability of FDR interest were also key issues.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 10(20),Section 147,Section 263,Section 144B,Section 271(1)(c),Section 271B,Section 271(1)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1044, 1045, 1046 & 1047/SRT/2025 (Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) M/s. Sachin Notified Area, Assessment Unit, Plot No.5719, Unnati Building, Income Tax Department, Sachin Gidc, Sachin, Jurisdictional AO, Surat The Deputy Commissioner of Gujarat Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1)(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat, Gujarat PAN: AAALS0146H (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CA Respondent by : Shri Ravi Kant, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 10.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 30.06.2026 O R D E R PER : SUCHITRA KAMBLE, J M: These appeals filed by the assessee are against the orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short “CIT(A)”] even dated 07.08.2025 for the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17.
As the facts are identical in these appeals, we hereby pass a consolidated order by taking ITA No.1044/SRT/2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2013-14 as the lead case.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
ITA Nos.1044, 1045, 1046 & 1047/SRT/2025 M/s. Sachin Notified Area “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in re-opening the assessment u/s.147 of the Act and issuing notice u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, which is bad in law hence liable to be quashed and void ab inito. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 3,76,57,512/- on account of alleged disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.10(20) of the Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 9,16,72,909/ on account of disallowance of FD interest income received claimed under the deduction u/s.10(20) of the Act and treated as income from other sources. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in initiating penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in initiating penalty u/s. 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in initiating penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper. 8. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.” 4. The assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 manually on 29.03.2014, declaring a total income of Nil after claiming exemption of Rs.3,76,57,512/- u/s 10(20) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened with the prior approval of the specified authority and after recordings reasons of reopening. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 27.03.2021. Subsequently, order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act passed on 30.03.2022, wherein income assessed at Rs.3.76.57,512/- after
ITA Nos.1044, 1045, 1046 & 1047/SRT/2025 M/s. Sachin Notified Area making disallowance of exemptions claimed at Rs.3.76.57,512/- u/s. 10(20) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). The aforesaid assessment order dated 30.3.2022 was later reviewed by the Pr. CIT-1, Surat under the provisions of section 263. The PCIT held that the amount of Rs.9,16,72,909/- being interest on FDR was taxable income since the assessee was held to be ineligible for deduction u/s 10(20). The PCIT, vide his order u/s. 263 of the Act dated 09.02.2024, set aside the assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.พ.ร. 144 r.พ.ร. 144B of the Act dated 30.03.2022 with a direction to pass fresh assessment order after providing reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Various opportunities were afforded to the assessee as per details given at Para 2 of the impugned order. After hearing the assessee, upon consideration of his submissions etc., the Assessing Officer (in short the “AO”) was of the view that the assessee is not covered under the provision of section 10(20) of the Act. Therefore, an amount Rs. 12,93,30,421/- (i.е. Rs.3,76,57,512/- being the non-allowable exemption claimed u/s. 10(20) of the Act + Rs. 9,16,72,909/- interest on FDR directly shown in the Balance Sheet as Capital Fund under the head 'Reserve and Surplus') was disallowed.
Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
The Ld. Authorised Representative (in short “Ld. AR”) for the assessee submitted that the consequential order passed on 23.03.2025 u/s 147 r.w.s. 263 r.w.s. 144B of the Act will not survive as the order u/s 263 of the Act, upon which the said assessment is based has been set aside by the Tribunal vide order dated 10.09.2025 (ITA Nos.246 to 248 & 223/SRT/2024). The Ld. Departmental Representative (in short “Ld. DR”) also stated the same.
We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. But assessment order passed while giving effect to the orders u/s 263 of the Act which were dated 09.02.2024 and 21.02.2024 have been set aside to the file of the PCIT for fresh order u/s 263 of the Act vide order dated 10.09.2025 by this Tribunal. Therefore, the order dated 23.03.2025 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 263 r.w.s. 144B of the Act does not survive 3
ITA Nos.1044, 1045, 1046 & 1047/SRT/2025 M/s. Sachin Notified Area and hence the appeal challenging the said order and the order of the CIT(A) also becomes nullified. Therefore, the appeal becomes infructuous and hence the same is dismissed.
The findings given in this appeal will apply mutatis mutandis to other appeals in 8. ITA Nos.1045, 1046 & 1047/SRT/2025 as well and hence the same are also hereby dismissed. 9. In result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2026
Sd/- Sd/- (B.M. BIYANI) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat; Dated: 30.06.2026 * Kishore, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Surat 5. Guard File By order,
Assistant Registrar/Sr.PS/PS ITAT, Surat Bench
More judgments on Section 10(20)
- Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), MohaliITA 636/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 635/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 634/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 633/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Skytech Construction Private Limited, New… vs Income Tax Officer, New DelhiITA 3179/DEL/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed9 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026