DCIT, EXEMPTION, CIRCLE-2, MUMBAI V. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BANK MANAGEMENT, MUMBAI

MA 32/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) - 2(1)/Circle-2 Mumbai as the appellant and the National Institute of Bank Management as the respondent. The Department filed miscellaneous applications against the Tribunal's earlier decision allowing the respondent's claims for exemption under section 11 and section 10(23C)(iv) for the assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18. The Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the respondent, citing consistent past decisions and no change in relevant facts or law. The Department's applications were based on the grounds that the Tribunal's decision was not acceptable and required verification, particularly concerning the treatment of certain receipts as income. However, the Tribunal found no mistake apparent from the record and dismissed the applications.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 711314 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: ITA Nos. 2913 & 2914/MUM/2016, ITA NO. 2915/MUM/2016, ITA NO. 2506/MUM/2014, CO NO. 182/MUM/2015, ITA No. 4238 & 4239/Mum/2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Question of law; Tax effect; Capital receipt
• Section: 11; 12A; 80G

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA Nos.29, 32 and 33 /MUM/2024 (In ITA Nos. 755, 754 and 756/Mum/2023) Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) – 2(1)/Circle-2 Mumbai Vs. National Institute of Bank Management, S-14, Pemino Altamount Road, Mumbai – 400026 (PAN : AAATN0040P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri S. Ananthan and Ms. R. Lalitha, ARs Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing : 18.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 22.07.2025 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These three miscellaneous applications are moved by the Department against the Common Appellate Order pronounced on 05.07.2023, in cross appeals filed by the Department and assessee in ITA Nos. 755, 754 and 756/Mum/2023 for AYs 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA Nos.29, 32 and 33 /MUM/2024 National Institute of Bank Management AYs 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 2. Common issues are raised by the Revenue in all the miscellaneous applications. We take up the same for Assessment Year 2015-16 as the lead one. 3. At the outset, from para 4 of the miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue, we note that the reason given for moving the same is that the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT is not acceptable and there is no question of law involved in the present case, also the tax effect involved is Rs.2,25,59,106/- which is more than Rs.50 lakhs. Further, in para-7 of the said application the prayer made is for reinstatement of the appeal for the reason that contribution of Rs.1,53,41,974/- received from member banks and interest of Rs. 22,850/- received from the staff and treating capital receipts as income needs to be verified in the light of provisions of the Act and submissions made by the assessee. It is also stated that there is no question of law involved. 3.1. In our considered view and taking into account the provisions contained in section 254(2), the power available with the Tribunal to amend its order passed by it u/s.254(1) is limited to rectifying any mistake apparent from the records. 4. It is noted that the issue raised by the assessee in its appeal for all the three years under consideration pertains to claim of exemption u/s.11 of the Act as well as u/s. 10(23C)(iv). In para-4 of the impugned order of the Tribunal, all the relevant facts have been captured whereby it is recorded that assessee is duly registered for the purposes of section 12A vide certificate no. BMY/INS/N (a)/9/73-74 dated 20.02.1974. Formation of the assessee was done as society Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA Nos.29, 32 and 33 /MUM/2024 National Institute of Bank Management AYs 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 registered under the Societies Registration Act (XXI) of 1860 on 24.09.1969 and is also registered u/s. 80G of the IT Act. It is further noted that assessee is a notified institution u/s. 10(23C)(iv) vide notification no. 318/2006 dated 14.11.2006. Assessee is an institution established by the Govt. of India through the Reserve Bank of India. The assessee society has its members including the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), State Bank of India (SBI), other nationalized banks, foreign banks, private banks and cooperative banks operating in India. Assessee is being managed and controlled by the Govt. of India through RBI. 4.1. Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for past several years had taken consistent view in allowing the claim of assessee in respect of exemption u/s.11. The orders of the Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case referred and relied upon are ITA Nos. 2913 & 2914/MUM/2016: A.Ys: 2010-11 & 2011-12, ΙΤΑ ΝΟ. 2915/MUM/2016: Α.Υ: 2012-13, ITA NO. 2506/MUM/2014: A.Y: 2009-10, CO NO. 182/MUM/2015: A.Y: 2009-10 and ITA No. 4238 & 4239/Mum/2019 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 4.2. Since the claim of exemption u/s.11 had been allowed consistently, similar view was adopted in these three years also, there being no change in facts and circumstances and the applicable law. There was no adjudication on the claim u/s.10(23C)(iv), since it was rendered academic in nature, as only one of the two benefits could have been allowed to the assessee. The observations and findings in this respect of the Tribunal as contained in para-6 of the impugned order is extracted below: Printed from counselvise.com 4 MA Nos.29, 32 and 33 /MUM/2024 National Institute of Bank Management AYs 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 “We have gone through the order of AO, order of the Ld. CIT (A) and the orders of the Coordinate Bench for the AYs mentioned (supra). In earlier orders of the coordinate bench, they decided the issue in favour of assessee as far as claim of exemptions u/s. 11 is concerned. Coordinate bench has rightly observed that once the benefit of section 11 has been granted the issue relating to exemption u/s. 10(23C) (iv) is academic in nature as either of the benefit can be given. As there is no change in the operations of the assessee alongwith revenue model and Ld. DR is not able to point out any difference in the facts as discussed earlier vis-a-vis the years under consideration before us. Hence, respectfully following the earlier decision of Coordinate Bench mentioned (supra), we also confirm the claim of the assessee u/s. 11. In view of this, ground no. 2 raised by the assessee became academic and requires no adjudication from us, hence the same is dismissed.” 4.3. Through the instant miscellaneous applications, stand of the Revenue is that the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable on merits and further needs verification since no question of law is involved. No mistake apparent from record is pointed out by ld. CIT DR in this respect to demonstrate the prejudice caused to allow the impugned miscellaneous applications. 5. In respect of ground no.4 raised by assessee in its appeal, ld. CIT DR pointed out that while dealing with this ground, the paragraph number mentioned from the order of ld. CIT(A) is not correct. We find that the ground relates to treatment of capital receipts as income. Since the claim of the assessee is allowed u/s.11 and even ld. CIT(A) had held in favour of the assessee, mentioning of incorrect paragraph number from the order of ld. CIT(A), has no bearing on the ultimate outcome of adjudication of ground no.4 as it is held to be rendered infructuous. Printed from counselvise.com 5 MA Nos.29, 32 and 33 /MUM/2024 National Institute of Bank Management AYs 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 6. In the light of above discussion and factual position as well as provisions contained u/s.254(2), the miscellaneous application moved by the Department is dismissed. 7. Similar miscellaneous applications are filed for Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18. Since the issues raised are identical, the same are also dismissed in view of our observations and findings, as noted above for Assessment Year 2015-16. 8. In the result, all the three miscellaneous applications moved by the Revenue are dismissed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 22 July, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Rahul Chaudhary) (Girish Agrawal) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 22 July, 2025 MP, Sr.P.S. Copy to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. 5. Guard File CIT BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "