FIXED INCOME MONEY MARKET AND DERIVATIVES ASSOCIATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMP.)-(1)(3),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 21/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the Fixed Income Money Market & Derivatives Association of India, which appealed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2018-19. The primary issue was the denial of exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which the assessee argued was unjustly denied based on their activities which were deemed to be in the nature of trade, commerce, or business. The Tribunal noted that the additional evidence provided by the assessee was not examined by the CIT(A) and thus decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s findings and restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for a detailed examination of the new evidence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 38003 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 10-09-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 02-01-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (Exemptions)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: NITESH JOSHI
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Revised return; Principle of natural justice; Charitable institution
• Section: 143(3); 251; 11; 20

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F & SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos. 21, 20 & 128/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2018-19 Fixed Income Money Market & Derivatives Association of India, 2nd floor, United India Building, Sir P.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001. Vs. ITO (Exemption)-(1)(3), 6th floor, Room 619, Cumballa Hills, MTNL Building, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. PAN NO. AAATF 0404 B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Nitesh Joshi Revenue by : Mr. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 10/09/2024 Date of pronouncement : 28/10/2024 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These appeals by the assessee are directed against orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2018-19 respectively. Identical issues are involved in these appeals and therefore, same were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee in appeal for assessment year 2013-14 are reproduced as under: 1: 0 Re.: Non granting of exemption u/s. 11 of the Income 1961; 1:1 The Commissioner of Income stand taken by the Assessing Officer in holding that the Appellant is not entitled to an exemption u/s. 11 of the Income by the Appellant. 1:2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and 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 Income computing its income for the year and the Commissioner of Income (Appeals) ought to have held as such. 1:3 The Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to grant the Appellant exemption u/s. 11 and to re accordingly. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 03.10.2013 declaring total income at Rs.77,93,570/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under the Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and complied with. The assessee trust is registered as a charitable organization with the Commissioner of Income proceedings, the Assessing Officer assessee related to dealing in securities and ancillary activities for dealing in securities in India of the trade/business and commercial activities and thus hit by the Fixed Income Money Market & Derivatives ITA Nos. 21, 20 & 128/MUM/2024 were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience. The grounds raised by the assessee in appeal for assessment 14 are reproduced as under: Non granting of exemption u/s. 11 of the Income 1 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the stand taken by the Assessing Officer in holding that the Appellant is not entitled to an exemption u/s. 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as claimed by the Appellant. The Appellant submits that considering the facts and 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 Income-tax Act, computing its income for the year and the Commissioner of Income (Appeals) ought to have held as such. The Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to grant the Appellant exemption u/s. 11 and to re-compute its total income Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 03.10.2013 declaring total income at . The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under the Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and complied with. The assessee trust is registered as a charitable organization with the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Mumbai. proceedings, the Assessing Officer found the act dealing in securities and ancillary activities for dealing in securities in India , which were held to be in the nature business and commercial activities and thus hit by the Fixed Income Money Market & Derivatives Association of India 2 ITA Nos. 21, 20 & 128/MUM/2024 were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated The grounds raised by the assessee in appeal for assessment Non granting of exemption u/s. 11 of the Income-tax Act, tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the stand taken by the Assessing Officer in holding that the Appellant is not tax Act, 1961 as claimed The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject, the Appellant is entitled tax Act, 1961 in computing its income for the year and the Commissioner of Income-tax The Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to grant compute its total income Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 03.10.2013 declaring total income at . The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and complied with. The assessee trust is registered as a charitable organization with the tax (Exemption), Mumbai. During scrutiny found the activities of the dealing in securities and ancillary activities for held to be in the nature business and commercial activities and thus hit by the proviso to section 2(15) of the A of the assessee, the Assessing Officer rejected the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 11 of the Act and held the assessee a mutual association. The Assessing Officer further treated the interest under the head assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30.01.2016 Assessing officer assessed 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the rejection of the exemption claimed by th the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority [2022] 143 taxmann.com 278 (SC) conference fee, sponsorship fee, website fee etc. we of trade, commerce or business or any services in relation thereto exceeding 20% of the total receipt and therefore, invoking the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (supra) uph exemption u/s 11 of the Act observing as under: “7.5 Generally, the charging of any amount towards consideration for advancing general public utility which is on cost basis or nominally above cost cannot be considered to be \"trade, commer any services in relation there to. It is only when the charges are markedly or significantly above the cost incurred by the appellant/assessee in question, that they would fall within the mischief of \"cess or fee or any other considerati business\". Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision held that the assessing authorities must every whether the nature of the assessee's activities amounts to \"trade, commerce or business\" based on its receipts and income (i.e., whether Fixed Income Money Market & Derivatives ITA Nos. 21, 20 & 128/MUM/2024 proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. After considering the submission of the assessee, the Assessing Officer rejected the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 11 of the Act and held the assessee association. The Assessing Officer further treated the under the head miscellaneous income as taxable. In the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30.01.2016 assessed total income at Rs.13,88,990/ On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the rejection of mption claimed by the assessee, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT (Exemption) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority [2022] 143 taxmann.com 278 (SC). The Ld. CIT(A) noted that annual conference fee, sponsorship fee, website fee etc. were in the nature commerce or business or any services in relation thereto exceeding 20% of the total receipt and therefore, invoking the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (supra) upheld the denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act observing as under: 7.5 Generally, the charging of any amount towards consideration for advancing general public utility which is on cost basis or nominally above cost cannot be considered to be \"trade, commerce or business\" or any services in relation there to. It is only when the charges are markedly or significantly above the cost incurred by the appellant/assessee in question, that they would fall within the mischief of \"cess or fee or any other consideration\" towards \"trade, commerce or business\". Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision held that the assessing authorities must every year, scrutinize the record to discern whether the nature of the assessee's activities amounts to \"trade, commerce or business\" based on its receipts and income (i.e., whether Fixed Income Money Market & Derivatives Association of India 3 ITA Nos. 21, 20 & 128/MUM/2024 ct. After considering the submission of the assessee, the Assessing Officer rejected the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 11 of the Act and held the assessee as association. The Assessing Officer further treated the scellaneous income as taxable. In the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30.01.2016, the at Rs.13,88,990/-. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the rejection of n view of the decision of ACIT (Exemption) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority [2022] 143 . The Ld. CIT(A) noted that annual re in the nature commerce or business or any services in relation thereto exceeding 20% of the total receipt and therefore, invoking the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad eld the denial of 7.5 Generally, the charging of any amount towards consideration for advancing general public utility which is on cost basis or nominally ce or business\" or any services in relation there to. It is only when the charges are markedly or significantly above the cost incurred by the appellant/assessee in question, that they would fall within the mischief on\" towards \"trade, commerce or business\". Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision held that the year, scrutinize the record to discern whether the nature of the assessee's activities amounts to \"trade, commerce or business\" based on its receipts and income (i.e., whether the amounts charged are on a cost found that they are in the nature of \"trade, commerce or business\", then 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 disentitling them to exemption. 7.6 It is noticed appellant to the ITO (Exam) 11(3), Mumbai that the total receipts from members and nonmembers for the financial year 2012 follows : EIXEO MONY MARKET AND DERIVATIVES ASSOCIATION Particulars Income Membership fees contribution Additional contribution for 5LP Bank interest from member banks Training fees Annual Conference Delegate Fees Annual Conference Fees-Sponsorship Fees F Trac Income Website Regstration Fees Interest on IT Refund & Other Prior Period Income Expenses Written Back: Total From the above income statement, it can be seen that the total receipts during the relevant year were Rs.6, following three receipts as in the nature of trade, commerce or business: 1. Annual Conference Delegate Fees (AO wrongly noted this amount as Rs.2,20,70,891) 1. Annual Conference Fee 2. Website Registration Fee The receipts from 'Annual Conference Delegate Fee' are received from both members and non exclusively received from non receipts, at least two more receipts from activities undertaken by the appellant appear to be in the nature of the of trade, commerce, or business or any services in relation there to. They are, Training fees Fixed Income Money Market & Derivatives ITA Nos. 21, 20 & 128/MUM/2024 the amounts charged are on a cost-basis, or significantly higher). If it is 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 to time) in the proviso to Section 2(15), has been breached, thus disentitling them to exemption. 7.6 It is noticed from letter of appellant dated 05.11.2015 written by the appellant to the ITO (Exam) 11(3), Mumbai that the total receipts from members and nonmembers for the financial year 2012 68 EIXEO MONY MARKET AND DERIVATIVES ASSOCIATION 31.03.2013 From Members From Non-members 19,750,000 2,769,400 3,588,418 3,041,965 653,099 15,561,324 2,814,503 Sponsorship 5,297,016 5,912,464 2,209,000 21,010 11,030 13,788 44,756,935 16,886,082 From the above income statement, it can be seen that the total receipts during the relevant year were Rs.6, 16,43,017. The AO identified the following three receipts as in the nature of trade, commerce or business: 1. Annual Conference Delegate Fees : Rs.1,83,75,827 (AO wrongly noted this amount as Rs.2,20,70,891) 1. Annual Conference Fee - Sponsorship Fee : Rs. 52,97,016 2. Website Registration Fee : Rs. 22,09,000 The receipts from 'Annual Conference Delegate Fee' are received from both members and non-members, whereas the other two receipts are exclusively received from non-members. In addition to 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 business or any services in relation there to. They are, - Training fees Rs. 36,95,064 Fixed Income Money Market & Derivatives Association of India 4 ITA Nos. 21, 20 & 128/MUM/2024 basis, or significantly higher). If it is 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 to time) in the proviso to Section 2(15), has been breached, thus from letter of appellant dated 05.11.2015 written by the appellant to the ITO (Exam) 11(3), Mumbai that the total receipts from members and nonmembers for the financial year 2012-13 are as Total 19,750,000 2,769,400 3,588,418 3,695,064 18,375,827 5,297,016 5,192,464 2,209,000 21,010 11,030 13,788 61,643,017 From the above income statement, it can be seen that the total receipts 16,43,017. The AO identified the following three receipts as in the nature of trade, commerce or business: : Rs.1,83,75,827 : Rs. 52,97,016 : Rs. 22,09,000 The receipts from 'Annual Conference Delegate Fee' are received from members, whereas the other two receipts are members. In addition to the above three receipts, at least two more receipts from activities undertaken by the appellant appear to be in the nature of the of trade, commerce, or F Trac Income Among the above two receipts, the 'training fees' is obtained from both members as well as non integrated reporting platform for deals in Corporate Bond, Corporate Bond Repo, CDs/ CPs which went live f receipts from F Trac were obtained only from non 7.7 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 receipts, I am of the con mischief of \"cess or fee or any other consideration\" towards \"trade, commerce or business\" 7.8 Since, the above receipts from the activities that are in the nature of the of trade, commerce, or business or an 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 be categorised as a 2(15) and the appellant will not be eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. This is in effect, ACIT (Exemptions) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (supra). 7.9 In part (b) of Ground No. 1, the appellant erred in assessing the appellant instead of charitable the assessment proceedings. It may be noted that Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the appellant's own c 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 mutuality (para 9 below). Thus, the appellant is not eligible for the benefit of the principle of 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 decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Indian trade pro organization vs DGIT (Exemp) Tribunal decision in Indian Chamber of Commerce Kolkata vs ITO (Exemp.). Both the above decisions were rendered prior to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Urban Develop (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 entitled for the exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Accordingly, this ground fails.” Fixed Income Money Market & Derivatives ITA Nos. 21, 20 & 128/MUM/2024 F Trac Income Rs. 59,12,464 Among the above two receipts, the 'training fees' is obtained from both members as well as non-members. 'F Trac' is nothing but FIMMDA integrated reporting platform for deals in Corporate Bond, Corporate Bond Repo, CDs/ CPs which went live from 1st December 2011. The receipts from F Trac were obtained only from non-members. 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 receipts, I am of the considered opinion that they would fall within the mischief of \"cess or fee or any other consideration\" towards \"trade, commerce or business\" the above receipts from the activities that are in the nature of of trade, commerce, or business or any services in relation there to, 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 be categorised as a \"charitable purpose\" in view of the Proviso to section ) and the appellant will not be eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. This is in effect, the ratio decidendi of Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT (Exemptions) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority In part (b) of Ground No. 1, the appellant contended that the AO assessing the appellant-company as a mutual association instead of charitable institution as claimed in the revised return during the assessment proceedings. It may be noted that Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the appellant's own case for the AY 2012 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 mutuality (para 9 below). Thus, the appellant is not eligible for the benefit of the principle of mutuality as well. Respectfully following the said decision of Hon'ble ITAT, the appellant's contention as above is 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 organization vs DGIT (Exemp) 229 Taxman 347 and Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal decision in Indian Chamber of Commerce Kolkata vs ITO (Exemp.). Both the above decisions were rendered prior to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (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 the exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Accordingly, this ground Fixed Income Money Market & Derivatives Association of India 5 ITA Nos. 21, 20 & 128/MUM/2024 Among the above two receipts, the 'training fees' is obtained from both members. 'F Trac' is nothing but FIMMDA integrated reporting platform for deals in Corporate Bond, Corporate rom 1st December 2011. The 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 sidered opinion that they would fall within the mischief of \"cess or fee or any other consideration\" towards \"trade, the above receipts from the activities that are in the nature of y services in relation there to, 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 \"charitable purpose\" in view of the Proviso to section ) and the appellant will not be eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the decidendi of Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT (Exemptions) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority contended that the AO as a mutual association institution as claimed in the revised return during the assessment proceedings. It may be noted that Hon'ble ITAT, ase for the AY 2012-13 in ITA 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 mutuality (para 9 below). Thus, the appellant is not eligible for the mutuality as well. Respectfully following the said decision of Hon'ble ITAT, the appellant's contention as above is 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 promotion 229 Taxman 347 and Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal decision in Indian Chamber of Commerce Kolkata vs ITO (Exemp.). Both the above decisions were rendered prior to the decision ment Authority 7.11 In view of the above factual matrix, I hold that the appellant is not the exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Accordingly, this ground 5. Before us, the Ld. counsel fo application for filing additional evidence containing pages 1 to 156 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 Development Authority ( details in respect of training and conference, website application activities for the year under consideration. Since 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 documents for adjudicating the substantial issue of activities of the assessee covered by the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. 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 of the Assessing Officer for verifying the claim of the assessee in the light of the additional evidence assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In assessment year 2014 request for admitting the additional evidence and conference expenses details, website application etc. Since, the details filed as additional evidence consideration are identical to the details filed in assessment year 2013-14 and therefore, following our find 2013-14, the ground file of the Assessing Officer Fixed Income Money Market & Derivatives ITA Nos. 21, 20 & 128/MUM/2024 Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed an application for filing additional evidence containing pages 1 to 156 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 Development Authority (supra). We find that the assessee has filed details in respect of training and conference, website application for the year under consideration. Since, tho have not been examined or verified by the Ld. CIT(A) and filed first before us therefore, it is important to examine all these documents for adjudicating the substantial issue of activities of the assessee covered by the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. 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 of the Assessing Officer for verifying the claim of the assessee in the light of the additional evidences filed. The grounds of appeal of the accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. In assessment year 2014-15 also the assessee has filed request for admitting the additional evidences related to and conference expenses details, website application etc. Since, the as additional evidences in the assessment year under consideration are identical to the details filed in assessment year 14 and therefore, following our finding in assessment year he grounds raised in the appeal are restored back to the of the Assessing Officer . Fixed Income Money Market & Derivatives Association of India 6 ITA Nos. 21, 20 & 128/MUM/2024 r the assessee has filed an application for filing additional evidence containing pages 1 to 156 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 e find that the assessee has filed details in respect of training and conference, website application etc , those documents have not been examined or verified by the Ld. CIT(A) and filed first before us therefore, it is important to examine all these documents for adjudicating the substantial issue of activities of the 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. 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 grounds of appeal of the accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 15 also the assessee has filed s related to training and conference expenses details, website application etc. Since, the in the assessment year under consideration are identical to the details filed in assessment year ing in assessment year raised in the appeal are restored back to the 7. The grounds raised in the ITA No. 128/Mum/2024 for assessment year 2018 1:0 Re.: Violation of principles of natural justice: 1: 1 The Commissioner of Income the impugned Order without giving an opportunity of being heard which is against the principles of natural justice and thus, should be struck down as bad in law. 2: 0 Re.: Enhancement of income by Commissioner of Income (Appeals): 2: 1 The Commissioner of enhancing the Appellant's total income for the year under consideration which is beyond the powers given in Section 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2:2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances o enhancement made by the Commissioner of Income u/s. 251 of the Income illegal. 2: 3 The Appellant submits that the enhancement made by the Commissioner of Income void. 3: 0 Re.: Denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Income 3: 1 The Commissioner of Income that the Appellant is not entitled to exemption u/s. 11 o tax Act, 1961. 3:2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and 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 Income-tax Act, 1961 in computing action of the Commissioner of Income Assessing Officer to re considering the provisions of Section 11 of the Income is misconceived, e 3:3 The Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to grant the Appellant exemption u/s. 11 and to re income accordingly. Fixed Income Money Market & Derivatives ITA Nos. 21, 20 & 128/MUM/2024 The grounds raised in the ITA No. 128/Mum/2024 for assessment year 2018-19, are reproduced as under: 1:0 Re.: Violation of principles of natural justice: 1: 1 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in passing impugned Order without giving an opportunity of being heard which is against the principles of natural justice and thus, should be struck down as bad in law. 2: 0 Re.: Enhancement of income by Commissioner of Income 2: 1 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in enhancing the Appellant's total income for the year under consideration which is beyond the powers given in Section 251 of the tax Act, 1961. The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject the enhancement made by the Commissioner of Income-tax u/s. 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is misconceived incorrect and 2: 3 The Appellant submits that the enhancement made by the sioner of Income-tax (Appeals) be struck down as ab 3: 0 Re.: Denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; 3: 1 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in holding that the Appellant is not entitled to exemption u/s. 11 of the Income The Appellant submits that considering the facts and 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 tax Act, 1961 in computing its income for the year and the action of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in directing the Assessing Officer to re-compute the Appellant's total income without considering the provisions of Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is misconceived, erroneous, incorrect and illegal. The Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to grant the Appellant exemption u/s. 11 and to re-compute its total income accordingly. Fixed Income Money Market & Derivatives Association of India 7 ITA Nos. 21, 20 & 128/MUM/2024 The grounds raised in the ITA No. 128/Mum/2024 for tax (Appeals) has erred in passing impugned Order without giving an opportunity of being heard which is against the principles of natural justice and thus, should be 2: 0 Re.: Enhancement of income by Commissioner of Income-tax tax (Appeals) has erred in enhancing the Appellant's total income for the year under consideration which is beyond the powers given in Section 251 of the The Appellant submits that considering the facts and f its case and the law prevailing on the subject the (Appeals) incorrect and 2: 3 The Appellant submits that the enhancement made by the tax (Appeals) be struck down as ab-initio tax Act, 1961; tax (Appeals) has erred in holding f the Income- The Appellant submits that considering the facts and 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 its income for the year and the tax (Appeals) in directing the compute the Appellant's total income without tax Act, 1961 The Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to compute its total 7.1 We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. In ground No. 1, the assessee has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not provided adequate opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural justice. Further, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed a request for admitting certain determination of the claim exemption u/s 11 of the Act which according to the assessee could not assessment or appellate proceedings. It is submitted by the assessee that said default was not deliberate on account of factors beyond the control of the assessee and therefore, said evidences should be admitted. We find that the identical additional have been admitted in assessment year 2013 Therefore, following our finding in those years for the year under consideration is set aside and restores back to the Ld. Assessing Officer consideration additional evidence submissions filed by the assessee. 7. In the result, all three statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER Fixed Income Money Market & Derivatives ITA Nos. 21, 20 & 128/MUM/2024 We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the evant material on record. In ground No. 1, the assessee has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not provided adequate opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural justice. Further, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed a request for admitting certain additional evidence in relation to determination of the claim exemption u/s 11 of the Act which according to the assessee could not be filed during the course of the assessment or appellate proceedings. It is submitted by the that said default was not deliberate on account of factors beyond the control of the assessee and therefore, said evidences should be admitted. We find that the identical additional been admitted in assessment year 2013-14 and 2014 following our finding in those years, the impugned for the year under consideration is set aside and restores Assessing Officer for adjudication after taking into consideration additional evidences and other documents/ submissions filed by the assessee. all three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. nounced in the open Court on 28/10/2024. Sd/- Sd/ (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Fixed Income Money Market & Derivatives Association of India 8 ITA Nos. 21, 20 & 128/MUM/2024 We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the evant material on record. In ground No. 1, the assessee has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not provided adequate opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural justice. Further, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed a request evidence in relation to determination of the claim exemption u/s 11 of the Act which during the course of the assessment or appellate proceedings. It is submitted by the that said default was not deliberate on account of factors beyond the control of the assessee and therefore, said evidences should be admitted. We find that the identical additional evidences 14 and 2014-15. the impugned order for the year under consideration is set aside and restores the mater after taking into and other documents/ appeals of the assessee are allowed for /10/2024. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 28/10/2024 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Fixed Income Money Market & Derivatives ITA Nos. 21, 20 & 128/MUM/2024 Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Fixed Income Money Market & Derivatives Association of India 9 ITA Nos. 21, 20 & 128/MUM/2024 BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "