Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a charitable organization, filed its return of income declaring total income. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim for exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, holding that the assessee's activities, including dealing in securities and related activities, were in the nature of trade or business, thus falling under the proviso to Section 2(15). The CIT(A) upheld this decision, citing a Supreme Court ruling.
Held
The Tribunal noted that for the assessment year 2013-14, the assessee filed additional evidence, and since these documents were not examined by the lower authorities, the matter was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. For the assessment year 2014-15, similar additional evidence was filed, and following the decision for AY 2013-14, the grounds were restored to the Assessing Officer. For assessment year 2018-19, the assessee raised grounds regarding violation of natural justice and enhancement of income, along with the denial of exemption. The Tribunal found that the additional evidence in AY 2018-19 was identical to that in AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, given its activities that allegedly constitute trade or business as per the proviso to Section 2(15). Also, issues related to natural justice and enhancement of income were raised for AY 2018-19.
Sections Cited
Section 11, Section 2(15), Section 251
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F & SMC” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL
were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience. order for convenience.
The grounds raised by the assessee in appeal for assessment The grounds raised by the assessee in appeal for assessment The grounds raised by the assessee in appeal for assessment year 2013-14 are reproduced as under: 14 are reproduced as under:
1: 0 Re.: Non granting of exemption u/s. 11 of the Income Non granting of exemption u/s. 11 of the Income-tax Act, Non granting of exemption u/s. 11 of the Income 1961; 1:1 The Commissioner of Income 1 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the stand taken by the Assessing Officer in holding that the Appellant is not stand taken by the Assessing Officer in holding that the Appellant is not stand taken by the Assessing Officer in holding that the Appellant is not entitled to an exemption u/s. 11 of the Income entitled to an exemption u/s. 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as claimed tax Act, 1961 as claimed by the Appellant. by the Appellant. 1:2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject, the Appellant is entitled of its case and the law prevailing on the subject, the Appellant is entitled of its case and the law prevailing on the subject, the Appellant is entitled to an exemption in terms of section 11 of the Income to an exemption in terms of section 11 of the Income-tax Act, tax Act, 1961 in computing its income for the year and the Commissioner of Income computing its income for the year and the Commissioner of Income computing its income for the year and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have held as such. (Appeals) ought to have held as such. 1:3 The Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to grant The Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to grant The Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to grant the Appellant exemption u/s. 11 and to re the Appellant exemption u/s. 11 and to re-compute its total income compute its total income accordingly.
Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 03.10.2013 declaring total income at return of income on 03.10.2013 declaring total income at return of income on 03.10.2013 declaring total income at Rs.77,93,570/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was . The return of income filed by the assessee was . The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under the Income-tax selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under the selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under the Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and complied with. The Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and complied with. The Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and complied with. The assessee trust is registered as a charitable organization with the assessee trust is registered as a charitable organization with the assessee trust is registered as a charitable organization with the Commissioner of Income Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Mumbai. tax (Exemption), Mumbai. During scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer proceedings, the Assessing Officer found the act found the activities of the assessee related to dealing in securities and ancillary activities for dealing in securities and ancillary activities for dealing in securities and ancillary activities for dealing in securities in India dealing in securities in India , which were held to be in the nature held to be in the nature of the trade/business and commercial activities and thus hit by the business and commercial activities and thus hit by the business and commercial activities and thus hit by the Fixed Income Money Market & Derivatives Fixed Income Money Market & Derivatives 3 Association of India 20 & 128/MUM/2024 20 & 128/MUM/2024 proviso to section 2(15) of the A proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. After considering the submission ct. After considering the submission of the assessee, the Assessing Officer rejected the exemption of the assessee, the Assessing Officer rejected the exemption of the assessee, the Assessing Officer rejected the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 11 of the Act and held the assessee as claimed by the assessee u/s 11 of the Act and held the assessee claimed by the assessee u/s 11 of the Act and held the assessee a mutual association. The Assessing Officer further treated the association. The Assessing Officer further treated the association. The Assessing Officer further treated the interest under the head under the head miscellaneous income as taxable. In the scellaneous income as taxable. In the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30.01.2016, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30.01.2016 assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30.01.2016 Assessing officer assessed assessed total income at Rs.13,88,990/ at Rs.13,88,990/-.
On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the rejection of On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the rejection of On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the rejection of the exemption claimed by th mption claimed by the assessee, in view of the decision of n view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT (Exemption) v. ACIT (Exemption) v. the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Urban Urban Urban Development Development Development Authority Authority Authority [2022] [2022] [2022] 143 143 143 taxmann.com 278 (SC) taxmann.com 278 (SC). The Ld. CIT(A) noted that annual . The Ld. CIT(A) noted that annual conference fee, sponsorship fee, website fee etc. we conference fee, sponsorship fee, website fee etc. were in the nature re in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any services in relation thereto commerce or business or any services in relation thereto commerce or business or any services in relation thereto exceeding 20% of the total receipt and therefore, invoking the ratio exceeding 20% of the total receipt and therefore, invoking the ratio exceeding 20% of the total receipt and therefore, invoking the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad eld the denial of Urban Development Authority (supra) uph Urban Development Authority (supra) upheld the denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act observing as under: exemption u/s 11 of the Act observing as under:
“7.5 Generally, the charging of any amount towards consideration for 7.5 Generally, the charging of any amount towards consideration for 7.5 Generally, the charging of any amount towards consideration for advancing general public utility which is on cost basis or nominally advancing general public utility which is on cost basis or nominally advancing general public utility which is on cost basis or nominally above cost cannot be considered to be "trade, commer above cost cannot be considered to be "trade, commerce or business" or ce or business" or any services in relation there to. It is only when the charges are any services in relation there to. It is only when the charges are any services in relation there to. It is only when the charges are markedly markedly markedly or or or significantly significantly significantly above above above the the the cost cost cost incurred incurred incurred by by by the the the appellant/assessee in question, that they would fall within the mischief appellant/assessee in question, that they would fall within the mischief appellant/assessee in question, that they would fall within the mischief of "cess or fee or any other considerati of "cess or fee or any other consideration" towards "trade, commerce or on" towards "trade, commerce or business". Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision held that the business". Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision held that the business". Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision held that the assessing authorities must every assessing authorities must every year, scrutinize the record to discern year, scrutinize the record to discern whether the nature of the assessee's activities amounts to "trade, whether the nature of the assessee's activities amounts to "trade, whether the nature of the assessee's activities amounts to "trade, commerce or business" based on its receipts and income (i.e., whether commerce or business" based on its receipts and income (i.e., whether commerce or business" based on its receipts and income (i.e., whether
Fixed Income Money Market & Derivatives Fixed Income Money Market & Derivatives 4 Association of India 20 & 128/MUM/2024 20 & 128/MUM/2024 the amounts charged are on a cost the amounts charged are on a cost-basis, or significantly higher). If it is basis, or significantly higher). If it is found that they are in the nature of "trade, commerce or business", then d that they are in the nature of "trade, commerce or business", then d that they are in the nature of "trade, commerce or business", then it must be examined whether the quantified limit (as amended from time it must be examined whether the quantified limit (as amended from time it must be examined whether the quantified limit (as amended from time to time) in the proviso to Section 2(15), has been breached, thus to time) in the proviso to Section 2(15), has been breached, thus to time) in the proviso to Section 2(15), has been breached, thus disentitling them to exemption. disentitling them to exemption. 7.6 It is noticed 7.6 It is noticed from letter of appellant dated 05.11.2015 written by the from letter of appellant dated 05.11.2015 written by the appellant to the ITO (Exam) 11(3), Mumbai that the total receipts from appellant to the ITO (Exam) 11(3), Mumbai that the total receipts from appellant to the ITO (Exam) 11(3), Mumbai that the total receipts from members and nonmembers for the financial year 2012 members and nonmembers for the financial year 2012 members and nonmembers for the financial year 2012-13 are as follows : 68 EIXEO MONY MARKET AND DERIVATIVES ASSOCIATION EIXEO MONY MARKET AND DERIVATIVES ASSOCIATION 31.03.2013 Particulars From Members From Non-members Total Income Membership fees contribution 19,750,000 19,750,000 Additional contribution for 5LP 2,769,400 2,769,400 Bank interest from member banks 3,588,418 3,588,418 Training fees 3,041,965 653,099 3,695,064 Annual Conference Delegate Fees 15,561,324 2,814,503 18,375,827 Annual Conference Fees-Sponsorship Sponsorship 5,297,016 5,297,016 Fees F Trac Income 5,912,464 5,192,464 Website Regstration Fees 2,209,000 2,209,000 Interest on IT Refund & Other 21,010 21,010 Prior Period Income 11,030 11,030 Expenses Written Back: 13,788 13,788 Total 44,756,935 16,886,082 61,643,017
From the above income statement, it can be seen that the total receipts From the above income statement, it can be seen that the total receipts From the above income statement, it can be seen that the total receipts during the relevant year were Rs.6, during the relevant year were Rs.6, 16,43,017. The AO identified the 16,43,017. The AO identified the following three receipts as in the nature of trade, commerce or business: following three receipts as in the nature of trade, commerce or business: following three receipts as in the nature of trade, commerce or business: 1. Annual Conference Delegate Fees 1. Annual Conference Delegate Fees : Rs.1,83,75,827 : Rs.1,83,75,827 (AO wrongly noted this amount as Rs.2,20,70,891) (AO wrongly noted this amount as Rs.2,20,70,891) 1. Annual Conference Fee 1. Annual Conference Fee - Sponsorship Fee : Rs. 52,97,016 : Rs. 52,97,016 2. Website Registration Fee 2. Website Registration Fee : Rs. 22,09,000 : Rs. 22,09,000 The receipts from 'Annual Conference Delegate Fee' are received from The receipts from 'Annual Conference Delegate Fee' are received from The receipts from 'Annual Conference Delegate Fee' are received from both members and non both members and non-members, whereas the other two receipts are members, whereas the other two receipts are exclusively received from non exclusively received from non-members. In addition to the members. In addition to the above three receipts, at least two more receipts from activities undertaken by the receipts, at least two more receipts from activities undertaken by the receipts, at least two more receipts from activities undertaken by the appellant appear to be in the nature of the of trade, commerce, or appellant appear to be in the nature of the of trade, commerce, or appellant appear to be in the nature of the of trade, commerce, or business or any services in relation there to. They are, business or any services in relation there to. They are, - Training fees Training fees Rs. 36,95,064
Fixed Income Money Market & Derivatives Fixed Income Money Market & Derivatives 5 Association of India 20 & 128/MUM/2024 20 & 128/MUM/2024
F Trac Income F Trac Income Rs. 59,12,464 Among the above two receipts, the 'training fees' is obtained from both Among the above two receipts, the 'training fees' is obtained from both Among the above two receipts, the 'training fees' is obtained from both members as well as non members as well as non-members. 'F Trac' is nothing but FIMMDA members. 'F Trac' is nothing but FIMMDA integrated reporting platform for deals in Corporate Bond, Corporate integrated reporting platform for deals in Corporate Bond, Corporate integrated reporting platform for deals in Corporate Bond, Corporate Bond Repo, CDs/ CPs which went live f Bond Repo, CDs/ CPs which went live from 1st December 2011. The rom 1st December 2011. The receipts from F Trac were obtained only from non receipts from F Trac were obtained only from non-members. 7.7 The above five receipts totalling Rs.3,54,89,371 are approximately The above five receipts totalling Rs.3,54,89,371 are approximately The above five receipts totalling Rs.3,54,89,371 are approximately 57.5% of the total receipts. Since the said receipts exceeded 20% of total 57.5% of the total receipts. Since the said receipts exceeded 20% of total 57.5% of the total receipts. Since the said receipts exceeded 20% of total receipts, I am of the con receipts, I am of the considered opinion that they would fall within the sidered opinion that they would fall within the mischief of "cess or fee or any other consideration" towards "trade, mischief of "cess or fee or any other consideration" towards "trade, mischief of "cess or fee or any other consideration" towards "trade, commerce or business" commerce or business" 7.8 Since, the above receipts from the activities that are in the nature of the above receipts from the activities that are in the nature of the above receipts from the activities that are in the nature of the of trade, commerce, or business or an of trade, commerce, or business or any services in relation there to, y services in relation there to, exceeded 20% of the total receipts, I hold that the advancement of the exceeded 20% of the total receipts, I hold that the advancement of the exceeded 20% of the total receipts, I hold that the advancement of the objects of general public utility in the case of the appellant SHALL NOT objects of general public utility in the case of the appellant SHALL NOT objects of general public utility in the case of the appellant SHALL NOT be categorised as a be categorised as a "charitable purpose" in view of the Proviso to section "charitable purpose" in view of the Proviso to section 2(15) and the appellant will not be eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the ) and the appellant will not be eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the ) and the appellant will not be eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. This is in effect, Act. This is in effect, the ratio decidendi of Hon'ble Supreme Court in decidendi of Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT (Exemptions) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority ACIT (Exemptions) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority ACIT (Exemptions) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (supra). 7.9 In part (b) of Ground No. 1, the appellant In part (b) of Ground No. 1, the appellant contended that the AO contended that the AO erred in assessing the appellant assessing the appellant-company as a mutual association as a mutual association instead of charitable instead of charitable institution as claimed in the revised return during institution as claimed in the revised return during the assessment proceedings. It may be noted that Hon'ble ITAT, the assessment proceedings. It may be noted that Hon'ble ITAT, the assessment proceedings. It may be noted that Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the appellant's own c Mumbai in the appellant's own case for the AY 2012 ase for the AY 2012-13 in dated 28.02.2020, held that the activities carried No.849/Mum/2017 dated 28.02.2020, held that the activities carried No.849/Mum/2017 dated 28.02.2020, held that the activities carried on by the assessee can never be assessed under the concept of on by the assessee can never be assessed under the concept of on by the assessee can never be assessed under the concept of mutuality (para 9 below). Thus, the appellant is not eligible for the mutuality (para 9 below). Thus, the appellant is not eligible for the mutuality (para 9 below). Thus, the appellant is not eligible for the benefit of the principle of benefit of the principle of mutuality as well. Respectfully following the mutuality as well. Respectfully following the said decision of Hon'ble ITAT, the appellant's contention as above is said decision of Hon'ble ITAT, the appellant's contention as above is said decision of Hon'ble ITAT, the appellant's contention as above is rejected. 7.10 In part (c) of Ground of appeal No.1, the appellant relied upon the 7.10 In part (c) of Ground of appeal No.1, the appellant relied upon the 7.10 In part (c) of Ground of appeal No.1, the appellant relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Indian trade pro decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Indian trade pro decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Indian trade promotion organization vs DGIT (Exemp) organization vs DGIT (Exemp) 229 Taxman 347 and Hon'ble Kolkata 229 Taxman 347 and Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal decision in Indian Chamber of Commerce Kolkata vs ITO Tribunal decision in Indian Chamber of Commerce Kolkata vs ITO Tribunal decision in Indian Chamber of Commerce Kolkata vs ITO (Exemp.). Both the above decisions were rendered prior to the decision (Exemp.). Both the above decisions were rendered prior to the decision (Exemp.). Both the above decisions were rendered prior to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Urban Develop of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority ment Authority (supra) and as such are not helpful to the appellant. (supra) and as such are not helpful to the appellant. 7.11 In view of the above factual matrix, I hold that the appellant is not 7.11 In view of the above factual matrix, I hold that the appellant is not 7.11 In view of the above factual matrix, I hold that the appellant is not entitled for the exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Accordingly, this ground the exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Accordingly, this ground the exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Accordingly, this ground fails.”
Fixed Income Money Market & Derivatives Fixed Income Money Market & Derivatives 6 Association of India 20 & 128/MUM/2024 20 & 128/MUM/2024
Before us, the Ld. counsel fo Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed an r the assessee has filed an application for filing additional evidence containing pages 1 to 156 application for filing additional evidence containing pages 1 to 156 application for filing additional evidence containing pages 1 to 156 in support of claim that assessee is not hit by the proviso to section in support of claim that assessee is not hit by the proviso to section in support of claim that assessee is not hit by the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act as per the ratio in the case of Ahmedabad Urban 2(15) of the Act as per the ratio in the case of Ahmedabad Urban 2(15) of the Act as per the ratio in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority ( Development Authority (supra). We find that the assessee has filed e find that the assessee has filed details in respect of training and conference, website application etc details in respect of training and conference, website application details in respect of training and conference, website application activities for the year under consideration. Since for the year under consideration. Since, tho , those documents have not been examined or verified by the Ld. CIT(A) and filed first have not been examined or verified by the Ld. CIT(A) and filed first have not been examined or verified by the Ld. CIT(A) and filed first time before us therefore, it is important to examine all these before us therefore, it is important to examine all these before us therefore, it is important to examine all these documents for adjudicating the substantial issue of activities of the documents for adjudicating the substantial issue of activities of the documents for adjudicating the substantial issue of activities of the assessee covered by the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. assessee covered by the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. assessee covered by the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. Accordingly, we feel it appropriate to set aside the finding of the Ld. Accordingly, we feel it appropriate to set aside the finding of th Accordingly, we feel it appropriate to set aside the finding of th CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and restore the matter back to the file CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and restore the matter back to the file CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for verifying the claim of the assessee in the of the Assessing Officer for verifying the claim of the assessee in the of the Assessing Officer for verifying the claim of the assessee in the light of the additional evidence light of the additional evidences filed. The grounds of appeal of the grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
15 also the assessee has filed 6. In assessment year 2014 In assessment year 2014-15 also the assessee has filed request for admitting the additional evidence request for admitting the additional evidences related to s related to training and conference expenses details, website application etc. Since, the and conference expenses details, website application etc. Since, the and conference expenses details, website application etc. Since, the in the assessment year under details filed as additional evidence as additional evidences in the assessment year under consideration are identical to the details filed in assessment year consideration are identical to the details filed in assessment year consideration are identical to the details filed in assessment year ing in assessment year 2013-14 and therefore, following our find 14 and therefore, following our finding in assessment year 2013-14, the ground he grounds raised in the appeal are restored back to the raised in the appeal are restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer of the Assessing Officer .
Fixed Income Money Market & Derivatives Fixed Income Money Market & Derivatives 7 Association of India 20 & 128/MUM/2024 20 & 128/MUM/2024
The grounds raised in the for The grounds raised in the for The grounds raised in the ITA No. 128/Mum/2024 for assessment year 2018 assessment year 2018-19, are reproduced as under:
1:0 Re.: Violation of principles of natural justice: 1:0 Re.: Violation of principles of natural justice: 1: 1 The Commissioner of Income 1: 1 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in passing tax (Appeals) has erred in passing the impugned Order without giving an opportunity of being heard impugned Order without giving an opportunity of being heard impugned Order without giving an opportunity of being heard which is against the principles of natural justice and thus, should be which is against the principles of natural justice and thus, should be which is against the principles of natural justice and thus, should be struck down as bad in law. struck down as bad in law. 2: 0 Re.: Enhancement of income by Commissioner of Income 2: 0 Re.: Enhancement of income by Commissioner of Income 2: 0 Re.: Enhancement of income by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals): 2: 1 The Commissioner of 2: 1 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in tax (Appeals) has erred in enhancing the Appellant's total income for the year under enhancing the Appellant's total income for the year under enhancing the Appellant's total income for the year under consideration which is beyond the powers given in Section 251 of the consideration which is beyond the powers given in Section 251 of the consideration which is beyond the powers given in Section 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. tax Act, 1961. 2:2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and The Appellant submits that considering the facts and The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances o circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject the f its case and the law prevailing on the subject the enhancement made by the Commissioner of Income enhancement made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) u/s. 251 of the Income u/s. 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is misconceived incorrect and incorrect and illegal. 2: 3 The Appellant submits that the enhancement made by the 2: 3 The Appellant submits that the enhancement made by the 2: 3 The Appellant submits that the enhancement made by the Commissioner of Income sioner of Income-tax (Appeals) be struck down as ab tax (Appeals) be struck down as ab-initio void. 3: 0 Re.: Denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Income 3: 0 Re.: Denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; tax Act, 1961; 3: 1 The Commissioner of Income 3: 1 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in holding tax (Appeals) has erred in holding that the Appellant is not entitled to exemption u/s. 11 o that the Appellant is not entitled to exemption u/s. 11 of the Income f the Income- tax Act, 1961. 3:2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and The Appellant submits that considering the facts and The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject, the circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject, the circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject, the Appellant is entitled to an exemption in terms of section 11 of the Appellant is entitled to an exemption in terms of section 11 of the Appellant is entitled to an exemption in terms of section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in computing tax Act, 1961 in computing its income for the year and the its income for the year and the action of the Commissioner of Income action of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in directing the tax (Appeals) in directing the Assessing Officer to re Assessing Officer to re-compute the Appellant's total income without compute the Appellant's total income without considering the provisions of Section 11 of the Income considering the provisions of Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 tax Act, 1961 is misconceived, e is misconceived, erroneous, incorrect and illegal. 3:3 The Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to The Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to The Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to grant the Appellant exemption u/s. 11 and to re grant the Appellant exemption u/s. 11 and to re-compute its total compute its total income accordingly. income accordingly.
Fixed Income Money Market & Derivatives Fixed Income Money Market & Derivatives 8 Association of India 20 & 128/MUM/2024 20 & 128/MUM/2024 7.1 We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. In ground No. 1, the assessee has evant material on record. In ground No. 1, the assessee has evant material on record. In ground No. 1, the assessee has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not provided adequate submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not provided adequate submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not provided adequate opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural justice. Further, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed a request justice. Further, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed a request justice. Further, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed a request for for admitting admitting certain certain additional evidence evidence in in relation relation to to determination of the claim exemption u/s 11 of the Act which determination of the claim exemption u/s 11 of the Act which determination of the claim exemption u/s 11 of the Act which according to the assessee could not according to the assessee could not be filed during the course of the during the course of the assessment or appellate proceedings. It is submitted by the assessment or appellate proceedings. It is submitted by the assessment or appellate proceedings. It is submitted by the assessee that said default was not deliberate on account of factors that said default was not deliberate on account of factors that said default was not deliberate on account of factors beyond the control of the assessee and therefore, said evidences beyond the control of the assessee and therefore, said evidences beyond the control of the assessee and therefore, said evidences should be admitted. We find that the identical additional evidences should be admitted. We find that the identical additional should be admitted. We find that the identical additional have been admitted in assessment year 2013 been admitted in assessment year 2013-14 and 2014 14 and 2014-15. Therefore, following our finding in those years following our finding in those years, the impugned the impugned order for the year under consideration is set aside and restores the mater for the year under consideration is set aside and restores for the year under consideration is set aside and restores back to the Ld. Assessing Officer Assessing Officer for adjudication after taking into after taking into consideration consideration additional additional evidences evidence and and other other documents/ documents/ submissions filed by the assessee. submissions filed by the assessee. appeals of the assessee are allowed for 7. In the result, all three all three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. statistical purposes.