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

MA 109/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Fixed Income Money Market And Derivatives Association of INDIA appealing to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against an order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which enhanced their income for the assessment year 2018-19. The Tribunal had previously set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer, allowing the assessee to present additional evidence. The assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking recall/rectification of the Tribunal's earlier order, claiming that Ground No. 2 regarding the enhancement of income was inadvertently omitted. However, the Tribunal dismissed the application, stating that since the entire order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was remanded, there was no need to separately adjudicate Ground No. 2.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 834065 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ADITYA RAI
• Assessee Lawyers: NITESH JOSHI
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 11

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) MA No.109/MUM/2025 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 128/MUM/2024) Assessment Years: 2018-19 Fixed Income Money Market And Derivatives Association of INDIA, Unit No.12A/10, Parinee Crescenzo, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400051. Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemp.) – (1)(3), Mumbai. PAN NO. AAATF 0404 B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nitesh Joshi Department by : Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 28/11/2025 Date of pronouncement : 03/02/2026 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM By way of this Miscellaneous Application, the assessee is seeking recall/rectification of the order of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short the ‘Tribunal’) passed in ITA No.128/MUM/2024 for Assessment year 2018-19. 2. The learned counsel for the assessee, referring to the Miscellaneous Application, submitted that while disposing of the Printed from counselvise.com Fixed Income Money Market And Derivatives Association 2 MA No. 109/MUM/2025 appeal, the Tribunal inadvertently omitted to adjudicate Ground No. 2 of the appeal, which related to enhancement of income by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material available on record. It is noticed that this Tribunal, vide its order dated 28.10.2024, reproduced in paragraph 7 the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. Thereafter, in paragraph 7.1, the Tribunal specifically noted Ground No. 1 relating to violation of the principles of natural justice on account of alleged denial of adequate opportunity of being heard. 4. The Tribunal also took note of the request made by the assessee for admission of certain additional evidences in support of its claim for exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which, according to the assessee, could not be furnished either during the assessment proceedings or before the first appellate authority due to reasons beyond its control. 4.1. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, and having regard to the fact that identical additional evidences had been admitted by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own cases for Assessment Years 2013–14 and 2014–15, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) in entirety and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Liberty was expressly granted to Printed from counselvise.com Fixed Income Money Market And Derivatives Association 3 MA No. 109/MUM/2025 the assessee to file additional evidences and such other documents and submissions as it may deem appropriate. The relevant findings of the Tribunal have been reproduced as under: “7. 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 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-tax (Appeals): 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 Income-tax Act, 1961. 2:2 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 (Appeals) u/s. 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is misconceived incorrect and illegal. 2: 3 The Appellant submits that the enhancement made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) be struck down as ab- initio void. 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-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 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. 3:3 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. Printed from counselvise.com Fixed Income Money Market And Derivatives Association 4 MA No. 109/MUM/2025 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 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 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 evidences have been admitted in assessment year 2013-14 and 2014-15. Therefore, following our finding in those years, the impugned order for the year under consideration is set aside and restores the mater back to the Ld. Assessing Officer for adjudication after taking into consideration additional evidences and other documents/ submissions filed by the assessee.” 5. Having regard to the aforesaid factual and legal position, we are of the considered view that once the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) itself has been set aside in toto and the matter remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, no part of the appellate order survives for independent examination. Consequently, the grievance of the assessee relating to enhancement of income by the learned CIT(A), which formed part of the same appellate order, stands rendered academic. 6. In such circumstances, there is no omission or mistake apparent on the face of the record warranting interference under section 254(2) of the Act. The prayer of the learned counsel for the assessee seeking separate adjudication of Ground No. 2 is therefore devoid of merit and is accordingly rejected. Printed from counselvise.com Fixed Income Money Market And Derivatives Association 5 MA No. 109/MUM/2025 7. In the result the Miscellaneous Application filed the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 03/02/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 03/02/2026 M. Ranganath Vittal , Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "