SEEPZ SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. EXEM. CIRCLE 2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 4134/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 September 2026AY 2015-166 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the AO had not taken cognizance of the revised return of income filed on 17.02.2017, which was on record. The CIT(A) had also not considered the assessee's grievances as there was no acknowledgment of the revised return on record. The Tribunal acknowledged that for subsequent assessment years, the assessee was granted exemption by the CBDT. Considering these peculiar facts, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Jurisdictional AO (JAO) to consider the revised return of income and pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with the law. The JAO was directed to consider that exemption under Section 10(46) was allowed in subsequent periods and to provide the assessee with a fair and reasonable opportunity to substantiate its claim. Ground No. 3 of the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. All other grounds of appeal were treated as not pressed as they were not argued by the assessee's AR. The operative direction was to restore the matter to the AO for fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dr. Gopal Rao Deshmukh Marg, is an authority established under the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. The appeal is by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2015-16. The assessee initially filed a return of income declaring Rs. 12,42,74,450/-. Subsequently, it filed a revised return on 13.02.2017, claiming a refund based on its status as a Local Authority and not a company. Another revised return was filed on 14.03.2016, claiming exemption under Section 10(46) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment on 29.12.2017, accepting the original return income without considering the revised returns and denying the exemption under Section 10(46), treating the assessee as a company. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order, noting no acknowledgment of the revised return. The assessee's primary grievance is the non-consideration of its revised return and the denial of exemption.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the Ld. AO by not appreciating that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was by an officer lacking valid jurisdiction and in contravention of CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 143(2) and CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011) 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the Ld. AO by not appreciating that the jurisdictional AO failed to issue a notice under Section 143(2) and completed the assessment based on an invalid notice issued by an officer without jurisdiction? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 143(2)) 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the revised return filed by the appellant during assessment proceedings on 13.02.2017? (Question of fact) 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not accepting the appellant's claim under Section 10(46) made through a revised return filed on 11.03.2016, considering the Supreme Court's decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 10(46) and Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT) 5. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in denying exemption under Section 10(46) to the appellant, who is a Local Authority set up by an Act of Parliament, with income from lease rent and administrative fees utilized for export promotion and SEZ development? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 10(46)) 6. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in denying exemption under Section 10(46) for AY 2013-14 contrary to CBDT Notification No. 99/2017 and settled legal position regarding retrospective application of beneficial circulars/notifications? (Question of law, concerning Section 10(46) and CBDT Notification No. 99/2017) 7. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the appellant's status as a Government Company, contrary to the AO's assessment order which accepted it as a 'Local Authority'? (Question of fact, concerning the status of the assessee) 8. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in invoking Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under Section 115JB, given the appellant's status as a Local Authority? (Question of law, concerning Section 115JB) Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction. It also contended that the AO did not consider the revised returns filed, which claimed its status as a Local Authority and exemption under Section 10(46). The assessee relied on the Supreme Court decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT for filing revised returns. It asserted its eligibility for exemption under Section 10(46) as a Local Authority and argued that MAT provisions under Section 115JB are not applicable. The assessee sought restoration of the matter to the AO or CIT(A) to consider the revised return. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities. The CIT-DR agreed that if the revised return needed consideration, the matter could be sent to the AO for a fresh consideration to avoid technical issues like remand reports.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 10(46),Section 115JB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Physical hearing) DCIT (Exemption) -Circle-2 Mumbai-400096. Mumbai 400026. PAN: AAAGS0028P Appellant /Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee by Shri. Suchek Anchalia &Ms Vaishali More CA (s)/ AR, Revenue by Shri. BasavarajHiremath CIT-DR, Date of hearing 25.09.2026 Date of pronouncement 28.09.2026 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) New Delhi/ ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [for short “CIT(A)”] dated 12.02.2026, for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the order passed by the DCIT – Circle – 25(1), Mumbai (‘Ld. AO’), without appreciating the fact that notice

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 10(46)

All 104 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(46) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →