INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY, MUMBAI V. DCIT (E) I(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6922/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8867 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 28-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KUMAR PADMA
• Keywords: Business income; Charitable institution; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 194C; 201; 194J; 13; 11; 15; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY , JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 6922 /MUM. /2016 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012 13 ) ITA NO. 6111 / MUM . /201 6 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 12 ) INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY NATHALAL PARIKH MARG, MATUNGA MUMBAI 400 019 PAN:AAATI4951J . APPELLANT V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 16(2)(4) . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NISHANT THAKKAR A/W MS. JASMINE AMALSADWALA REVENUE BY : SHRI KUMAR PADMAPANI BORA DATE OF HEARING 17.12.2019 DATE OF ORDER 15.01.2020 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M. A FORESAID APPEALS BY THE SAME ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 1, MUMBAI , PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 201 1 12 AND 201 2 13 , 2. THE COMMON GROUND S RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH TH E APPEALS ARE IN RELATION TO DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT 'THE ACT' ) IN RESPECT OF 2 INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY CONSULTANCY FEE RECEIVED. OF COURSE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED ALTERNATIVE GROUND CLAIMING EXEMPTION U /S 10(23C) OF THE ACT. 2. BRIEF FACTS ARE, THE ASSE SSEE WAS ESTABLISHED AS A DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY ON 1 ST OCTOBER 1933, BY THE UNIV ERSITY OF MUMBAI. THE ASSESSEE I NSTITUTION IS BASICALLY UNDERTAKING RESEARCH IN THE FIELD OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING AND PROVIDING TRAINING . WITH PASSAGE OF TIME ASSES SEE WAS GRANTED AUTONOMY UNDER UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION (UGC) REGULATION S BY THE UN IVERSITY OF MUMBAI AND CONVERTED INTO AN INDEPENDENT I NSTITUTION ON 26 TH JANUARY 2002. SUBSEQUENTLY, ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA AND UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI, THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED DEEMED UNIVERSITY STATUS BY THE MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ON 12 TH SEPTEMBER 2008, WITH ALL THE PROVISIONS OF UG C FOR FUNDING AND SUPPORT AS A STATE OWNED DEEMED UNIVERSITY. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS A PART OF MUMBAI UNIVERSITY, THE INCOME EARNED BY IT FORMED PART OF INCOME OF MUMBAI UNIVERSITY , AND WAS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(23C) OF THE ACT. FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR S , THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME U NDER SECTION 139 OF THE ACT DECLARED NIL INCOME AFTER CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER , IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , NOTICED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED CONSULTANCY FEE. NO TICING THIS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY THE 3 INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY CONSULTANCY FEE RECEIVED SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME AND BROUGHT TO TAX. IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT CERTAIN PROJECTS WERE UNDERTAKEN WITH A VIEW TO CARRY OUT R ESEARCH AND HELP THE STUDENTS/ FELLOW S OF THE INSTITUTION TO GAIN ACTUAL WORKING EXPERIENCE IN LIVE PROJECTS IN THE SUBJECT DURING THE COURSE OF THEIR STUDIES. THE TRAINING SESSION HELPS IN IMPARTING THE RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH TO THE INDUSTRY, HENCE, SERVE S AS A PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE AND AT THE SAME TIME IT HELP S THE INSTITUTE IN GIVING RESEARCH IN NEW PROJECT S . IT WAS SUBMITTED , OUT OF THE TOTAL FEE RECEIVED FROM SUCH PROJ E CT S , ONLY 1/3 RD IS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE BALAN CE AMOUNT IS PAID TO THE FACULT Y WHO UNDERTAKES THE RESEARCH PROJECT. IT WAS SUBMITTED , THE INS T ITUTION S SH ARE IS MAINLY TO COVER THE COST OF INFRASTRUCTURE / LABORATORY FACILIT IES PROVIDED BY THE INSTITUTION FOR UNDERTAKING THE RESEARCH AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE. THUS, IT WAS SUB MITTED , THE ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS BUT ONLY FOR RESEARCH AND TRAINING PURPOSE AND THEREFORE IS PART OF ITS MAIN ACTIVITY OF IMP ARTING EDUCATION ON THE LATEST TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE FIELD OF CHEMICAL TEC HNOLOGY BEING A LEADING TRAINING INSTITUTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE OBSERVED , NOWHERE IN THE OBJECT S OF THE INSTITUTION T HE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE CONSULTANCY SERVICE. FURTHER, HE OBSERVED , WHILE MAKING PAYMENT OF CONSULTANCY FEE M AJOR COMPANIES HAVE DEDUCTED TAX UNDER SECTION 4 INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY 194C AND 194J OF THE ACT. HE ALSO OBSERVED , OUT OF THE RECEIPT OF CONSULTANCY FEE THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PAYMENT TO TWO PROF ESSORS WHICH INDICATES THAT PROFESSIONALS WERE ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF CONSULTANCY UNDER THE ROOF OF THE INSTITUTION AND THERE IS NO MAJOR ROLE OF STUDENTS FOR EDUCATION PURPOSE. HE OBSERVED , FROM THE AFORESAID FACTS IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO MAKE PROF IT WHICH IS FURTHER STRENGTHENED FROM THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING ANY SEPARATE ACCOUNTS A S ENVISAGED UNDER SECTION 11(4) AND (4A) OF THE ACT. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER CONCLUDED THAT THE R EVENUE EARNED ON SUCH CONSULTANCY ACTIVITY CANNOT BE REGARDED AS CHARITABLE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 ( 15 ) R/W SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT. ON THE AFORESAID REASONING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION ONLY WITH REGARD TO ITS SHARE IN CONSULTANCY FEE RECEIVED , THOUGH , HE ALLOWED ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPT ION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT I N RESPECT OF BALANCE INCOME IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS . AGAINST THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL S BE FORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 3. H OWEVER, RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 11, LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) UPHELD THE D ISALLOWANCE/ ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5 INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY 4. THE LEARNED A UTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, REITERATING THE STAND TAKEN BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PURELY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION AND IS A DEEMED UNIVERSITY. HE SUBMITTED , ASSESSEE IS NOT ONLY GRANTED DEEMED UNIVERSITY STATUS BY THE MIN ISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, BUT IT RECEIVED GRANT FROM THE GOVERNMENT UNDER UGC REGULATIONS. HE SUBMITTED , THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO APPROVED AS AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION FOR PROVIDING CHEMICAL ENGINEERING COURSE BY AICTE WHICH IS THE COMPETENT AUTHO RITY TO GRANT APPROVAL TO TECHNICAL INSTITUTION S . THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED , THE AFORESAID FACTS CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INSTITUTION CREATED FOR PROVIDING EDUCATION, HENCE, IS COVERED UNDER THE DEFINITION OF CHARITAB LE PURPOSE AS PER SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED , THE CO NSULTANCY SERVICE PROVIDED FOR DIFFERENT PROJECTS IS PART OF ITS RESEARCH AND EDUCATION AL ACTIVITY INVOLVING THE FACULTY AND STUDENTS, THEREFORE, ANCI LLARY AND INCIDENTAL TO ITS MAIN OBJECT OF PROVIDING EDUCATION. THAT BEING THE CASE, THE CONSULTANCY ACTIVITY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A SEPARATE ACTIVITY DISTINCT FROM ITS MAIN OBJECT OF PROVIDING EDUCATION. HE SUBMITTED , ASSESSEES 1/3 RD SHARE IN THE CONSULTANC Y FEE RECEIVED BY THE FACULTY IS IN THE NATURE OF HONORARIUM AND APPROVED BY THE U G C. HE SUBMITTED , SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS PROVIDING EDUCATION, THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT WOULD NOT BE APP LICABLE AS IT IS ONLY APPLICABLE 6 INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY TO THE LAST CATEGORY OF ACTIVITY PROVIDED UNDER THE D EFINITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSES UNDER SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT VIZ. ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY . THEREFORE, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED A SHARE IN THE CONSULTANCY FEE, THE SAME WAS RECEIVED IN FURTHERANCE OF ITS O BJECT OF EDUCATION AL ACTIVITY, HENCE, CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS TO TREAT IT AS NON CHARITABLE PURPOSE. THUS, HE SUBMITTED , ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE CONSULTANCY FEE RECEIVED. AT THIS STAGE, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT WHILE DECIDING IDENTICAL ISSUE OF EXEMPTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF CONSULTANCY FEE, THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 11 HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, HE SUBMITTED , THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACT AS THE TRIBUNAL HAD NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER ASSESSEES ARGUMENT THAT THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO AN ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN EDUCATION AL ACTIVITY. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED , ASSESSEE IS A DEEMED UNIVERSITY ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF PROVIDING EDUCATION. HE SUBMITTED , ASSESSEE ALSO RECEIVED SUBSTANTIAL GRANT FROM THE GOVERNMENT WHICH IS MORE THAN 60% OF THE TOTAL FUND RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, IT IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAB) OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED , IN THE YEAR 2009, THOUGH, THE 7 INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSEE HAD APPLIED FOR APPROVAL FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT, HOWEVER, VIDE ORDER DATED 21 ST DECEMBER 2009, LEARNED CHIEF COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI, HAD REFUSED TO GRANT APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF T HE ACT ON THE REASONING THAT ASSESSEES CASE FALLS UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAB) OF THE ACT. THUS, HE SUBMITTED , THE DEPARTMENT ITSELF RECOGNIZES THE ASSESSEE AS A UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATION AL INSTITUTION EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATION PURPOSE AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROFIT. HE SU BMITTED , SUBSEQUENTLY, LEARNED CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI, HAS GRANTED APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 15, THEREBY , RECO GNISING THE ASSESSEE AS A UNIVERSITY/ OTHER EDUCATION AL INSTITUT ION EXISTING SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROFIT. TO SUPPORT THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SOUGHT PERMISSION OF THE BENCH TO FU RNISH THE RELEVANT ORDERS OF LEARNED CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX, MUMBAI, AND FEW MORE DOCUMENTS AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. THUS, HE SUBMITTED , ASSESSEE IS OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION EITHER UNDER S ECTION 10(23C)(IIIAB) OR UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT AS NOT ONLY IT IS A UNIVERSITY/ OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION EXISTING SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION AND NOT FOR PROFIT BUT HAS RECEIVED SUBSTANTIAL FUND FROM THE GOVERNMENT. HE SUBMITTED , ASSESSEES ALTERNATIVE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(II I AB) OR UNDER SECTION 8 INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT , THOUGH , WAS RAISED BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), HOWEVER, THEY HAVE NOT AT ALL DEALT WITH THE ISSUE. HE SUBMITTED , THE AFORESAID CLAIM/ CONTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO NEVER CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2010 11. THUS, HE SUBMITTED , THE ISSUE HAS TO BE RESTORED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH EXAMINATION. 5. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED , AS FAR AS ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U /S 11 OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED , THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 11. WITH REGARD TO THE ALTERNATIVE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C) OF THE ACT, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED , THE ISSUE WAS NEVER RAISED BEF ORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND HAS BEEN RAIS ED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THIS FORUM. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS REGARDS THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT, IN RESPECT OF 1/3 RD SH ARE RECEIVED FROM CONSULTATION FEE, WE MUST OBSERVE THAT WHILE DECIDING IDENTICAL ISSUE IN ITS OWN CASE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 11, THE TRIBUNAL HAS UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES IN DISALLOWING ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECT ION 11 OF TH E ACT IN RESPECT OF CONSULTANCY FEE. ON A PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN ITA NO.3808/MUM./ 9 INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY 2015, DATED 28 TH OCTOBER 2015, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 11, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS MAINLY PROCEEDED ON THE BAS IS THAT THE CONSULTANCY FEE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AN ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TR ADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR AN ACTIVITY OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS FOR A FEE, HENCE, IS COVERED UNDER THE PROVISO TO SECTIO N 2(15) R/W SECTION 11(4) AND 1 1(4A) OF THE ACT. TO OVERCOME THE E FFECT OF THE AFORESAID DECISION THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS , THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ACTIVITY OF EDUCATION. IT IS RELEVANT TO OBSERVE , IN THE C OURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES , SUCH AS , APPROVAL OF AIECTE, APPROVAL OF GOVERNMENT AS DEEMED UNIVERSITY, ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT ETC . IN OUR OPINION, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WILL HAVE A CRUCIAL BEARING ON THE ISSUE, HENCE, WE ARE INCLINED TO ADMIT THEM. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE US, PRIMA FACIE , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS A DEEMED UNIVERSITY , HENCE, FALLS WITHIN THE CATEGORY OF UNIVERSITY/ OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION COVERED UNDER SECTION 10(23C) (IIIB) OR 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, IT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS A N EDUCATIONAL IN STITUTION BY COMPETENT AUTHOR ITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT. NOW IT IS FAIRLY WELL SETTLED THAT THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT APPLIES ONLY TO THE ACTIVITY OF THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF 10 INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY AS PER THE DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE UNDER SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE IT IS ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF PROVIDING EDUCATION, THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE. THE AFORESAID ASPE CT HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED OR DEALT WITH BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2010 11 PROBABLY BECAUSE NO PLEADING TO THAT EFFECT WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. BE THAT AS IT MAY, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT REQUIRES EXAMINATION K EEPING IN VIEW THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN DIT (E.) V/S LALA LAJPATRAI, [2016] 383 ITR 345 (BOM.), WHEREIN , THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE TEST TO DETERMINE AS TO WHAT WOULD BE A CHARITABLE PURPOSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT IS TO ASCERT AIN WHAT IS THE DOMINANT OBJECT/ ACTIVITY. THE COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT IF THE DOMINANT OBJECT IS THE ACTIVITY OF PROVIDING EDUCATION, IT WI LL BE CHARITABLE PURPOSE UNDER SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT , EVEN THOUGH , SOME PROFIT ARISES FR OM SUCH ACTIVITY. THEREFORE, ASSESSEES CONTENTION REGARDING APPLICABILITY OF PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT REQUIRES EXAMINATION. FURTHER, ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/ 10(23C)(IIIAB) OR 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT ALSO REQUIRES EXAMINATION KEEPING IN VIEW THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED C HIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI, UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS A DEEMED UNIVERSITY 11 INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY AND RECEIVING SUBSTANTIAL GRANT FROM THE GOVERNMENT. SINCE THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT AT ALL BEEN EXAMINED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES, WE ARE INCLINED TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE EXAMINATION AND DIRECT HIM TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE KEEPING IN VIEW THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE DECISIONS TO BE CITED BEFORE HIM. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST CONSIDER ALL THE CONTENTIO NS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT AS WELL AS THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAB) OR UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. NEEDLESS TO MENTION , THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST PROVIDE R EASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUE THROUGH A SPEAKING ORDER. GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL S ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OU RT ON 15.01.2020 SD/ - S. RIFAUR RAHMAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - SAKTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 15.01.2020 12 INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE REVENUE; (3) THE CIT(A); (4) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; (6) GUARD FILE . TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI