THE SYNTHETIC & SILK MILLS RESEARCH ASSOCIATION,MUMB AI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 693/MUM/2021Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 April 2022AY 2013-143 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The assessee's counsel submitted that the assessee had already received relief in compliance with the CIT's order. Therefore, the assessee was no longer interested in pursuing the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a revision order passed by the CIT(Exemption). The assessee argued that the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue and that the CIT misinterpreted Section 10(21) regarding the exemption of income for research associations.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT's revision order under Section 263 was valid, and whether income from certain sources was exempt under Section 10(21).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 10(21)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY

For Appellant: Mr. Tanzil Pedvekar, AR
For Respondent: Mr. Vijay Shankar, CIT-DR
Hearing: 26/04/2022Pronounced: 26/04/2022

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the Revision order dated 05.03.2021 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai for assessment year 2013- 14. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under :

1.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the power exercised by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (in short referred to as the Ld. CIT) under Sec. 263 of the Act, in law, is patently illegal as the Assessment Order subjected to revision is not erroneous or nor it is The Synthetic & Art Silk Mills 2 prejudicial to interest of the Revenue and hence, impugned Order dt. 05/03/ 2021 needs to be quashed.

2. On facts and circumstances of the Case, Ld. CIT conveniently misinterpreted provisions of Sec. 10(21) of the Act when language of said provision is plain and unambiguous and any income of the "Research Association" is exempt from Income Tax.

3.

The Ld. CIT failed to understand that the Legislature has given exemption to "Any income' as per said expression used at beginning of Sec. 10(21) and also failed to understand that the exemption to Income from Tax is not restricted to particular class or category of Income nor based on source of income.

4. The Ld. CIT misinterpreted provisions of Sec. 10(21) of the Act that the Legislature has treated Research Association' as separate class and only for limited purpose provisions of Sec. 11 of the Act are made applicable mutatis mutandis.

5.

The Ld. CIT erred in holding that the income derived from Auditorium Hire Charges, Hoarding Sites & Service charges, and Licence Fees/rent are not connected or incidental to attainment of objectives of the Appellant when no such conditions are present in Sec. 10(21) of the Act and hence, impugned Order is based on erroneous findings & said Order deserves to be squashed.

2.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that order passed by the Assessing Officer in compliance to the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee has already got relief and therefore, the assessee is not interest in pursuing this appeal.

The Synthetic & Art Silk Mills 3

3. In view of the above submission of the assessee, the present appeal is treated as withdrawn and accordingly dismissed as infructuous.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/04/2022.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →