NEHRU CENTRE,MUMBAI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS 2 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

MA 115/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Nehru Centre, an educational trust, which filed Miscellaneous Applications against the combined order of the ITAT for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2018-19. The original ITAT order had mischaracterized the trust's activities as falling under the category of 'advancement of any other object of general public utility', contrary to its established status as an educational institution under section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal acknowledged the oversight and rectified the mistake by recalling the original order and restoring the case for fresh examination in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of ACIT vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 843936 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANNAVARAMKOSURI
• Assessee Lawyers: P.J. PARDIWALA
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM M.A. No. 113,114 & 115/Mum/2025 (Arising out of I.T.A No. 3076, 3077 & 3088/Mum/2024) (Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2018-19) Nehru Centre 13th Floor, Discovery of India Building, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai 400018. PAN: AAATN2536J Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions, Circle 2(1) Mumbai. 603, 6th Floor, MTNL Telephone Exchange Building, Dr. GD Deshmukh Marg, Peddar Road, Cumbala Hill, Mumbai 400 026. (Applicant) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Mr. P.J. Pardiwala, Adv. Revenue by : Shri. Annavaram Kosuri, SR AR. Date of Hearing : 06/03/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 16/03/2026 O R D E R Per Anikesh Banerjee, JM: All the Miscellaneous Applications (MA) filed by the same assessee against the combined order of the ITAT bearing ITA No. 3076,3077 & 3088/Mum/2024 for Assessment Year 2011-12, 2012-13, 2018-19, date of pronouncement 23/10/2024. 2. All the MA’s are arising out from the common order of the ITAT related to the same assessee. So all the MAs are taken together, heard together and disposed by the common order. MA Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 3076, 3077 & 3088/Mum/2024 for Assessment Year 2011-12, 2012-13, 2018-19) 2 113/Mum/2025 is taken as a lead case and the order rendered in this MA should be applicable mutatis mutandis to other MAs. 3. The Ld. AR contended that during passing the order, the bench has wrongly observed the fact related to assessee’s appeal. The Ld. AR invited our attention in order of the Tribunal in Para No. 8 and 9 which is reproduced as below: “8. The Ld. AR on the other hand submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order as it is based on the order of the Ld. Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 7461/Mum/2018 referred (supra) but the Ld. AR very fairly submitted that if the Tribunal thinks fit, the matter may be restored to the Ld. AO in order to examine the case of the assessee in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e., Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, referred (supra). 9. We have considered the submissions and examined the record. From the above discussions, it becomes crystal clear that there is no dispute that the assessee trust falls within the category of an assessee engaged in advancement of any other object of general public utility and falls within the four earners of proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. But whether the case of the assessee falls within the four corner of Section 11(4A) of the Act is a matter to be examined in order to ascertain whether the advancement of any other object of general public utility is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the trust or the requirement of separate books of account are fulfilled by the assessee trust or not?” 4. The Ld. AR contended that the Bench in original had already considered and followed the order of the Coordinate Bench in the assessee’s own case for AY 2010–11 in ITA No. 7461/Mum/2018, dated 04.02.2022. However, while passing the original order, the directions contained in the order of the Coordinate Bench were not followed by the Bench. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 3076, 3077 & 3088/Mum/2024 for Assessment Year 2011-12, 2012-13, 2018-19) 3 5. It is observed that the assessee, in the MA, has made the following submissions, which are reproduced below: “4. It has been held in paragraphs 9 to 13 of the order that it is undisputed that the Applicant is pursuing objects of general public utility and falls within the scope of section 2(15) of the Act. With this finding, the matter has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the case afresh in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (2022) (449 ITR 1). 5. At the outset, it is submitted that characterization of the assessee's objects with regard to section 2(15) of the Act has already been decided by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the A.Y. 2010-11 in ITA no. 7461/Mum/2018, wherein it was held that the Applicant is engaged in imparting education, and, hence, its objects satisfy the definition of 'charitable purpose' in section 2(15). 6. In the course of the hearing of the present appeal, it was submitted by the authorized representative of the assessee that the issue was concluded by the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal for the earlier year and, that the proviso to section 2(15) does not apply to the facts of its case as it is imparting education, and not an object of general public utility, and, accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is required to be dismissed. Nevertheless, he agreed that the matter could be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for the limited purpose to examine if the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Urban (supra) had any bearing on the applicability of the proviso to section 2(15) once it has been held by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the A.Y. 2010-11 that it is pursuing the object of education. 7. Therefore, the findings in paragraphs 9 to 13 of the order are factually incorrect inasmuch as it has been held that it is not in dispute that the assessee is pursuing objects of general public utility and falls within the scope of the proviso to section 2(15). The findings are also erroneous inasmuch as they are contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the Assessee's own case for the A.Y. 2010-11. It is submitted that the aforesaid mistakes constitute mistakes apparent from record which are required to be rectified in exercise of the power under section 254(2) of the Act. 8. In light of the above, it is prayed that paragraphs 9 to 13 of the order may be expunged and it may be clarified that the remand to the Assessing Officer is only to examine if the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Urban (supra) has any bearing on the facts of the Assessee's case, considering the Tribunal's order for the A.Y. 2010-11, which holds the field, and wherein it has been held that the assessee is pursuing education.” Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 3076, 3077 & 3088/Mum/2024 for Assessment Year 2011-12, 2012-13, 2018-19) 4 6. It was argued and submitted that the aforesaid issue constitutes a mistake apparent from the record, and that the Bench had inadvertently recorded the submissions of the Ld. AR incorrectly in the order. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2007] 295 ITR 466 (SC) wherein the following observations were made: “12. As stated above, in this case we are concerned with the application under section 254(2) of the 1961 Act. As stated above, the expression \"rectification of mistake from the record\" occurs in section 154. It also finds place in section 254(2). The purpose behind enactment of section 254(2) is based on the fundamental principle that no party appearing before the Tribunal, be it an assessee or the Department, should suffer on account of any mistake committed by the Tribunal. This fundamental principle has nothing to do with the inherent powers of the Tribunal. In the present case, the Tribunal in its Order dated 10-9-2003 allowing the Rectification Application has given a finding that Samtel Color Lid's case (supra) was cited before it by the assessee but through oversight it had missed out the said judgment while dismissing the appeal tiled by the assessee on the question of admissibility/allowability of the claim of the assessee for enhanced depreciation under section 43A. One of the important reasons for giving the power of rectification to the Tribunal is to see that no prejudice is caused to either of the parties appearing before it by its decision based on a mistake apparent from the record. 13. \"Rule of precedent\" is an important aspect of legal certainty in rule of law. That principle is not obliterated by section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. When prejudice results from an order attributable to the Tribunal's mistake, error or omission, then it is the duty of the Tribunal to set it right. Atonement to the wronged party by the Court or Tribunal for the wrong committed by it has nothing to do with the concept of inherent power to review. In the present case, the Tribunal was justified in exercising its powers under section 254(2) when it was pointed out to the Tribunal that the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench was placed before the Tribunal when the original order came to be passed but it had committed a mistake in not considering the material, which was already on record. The Tribunal has acknowledged its mistake; it has accordingly rectified its order. In our view, the High Court was not justified in interfering with the said order. We are not going by the doctrine or concept of inherent power. We are simply proceeding on the basis that if prejudice had resulted to the party, which prejudice is attributable to the Tribunal's mistake, error or omission and which error is a manifest error then the Tribunal would be justified in rectifying its mistake, which had been done in the present case. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 3076, 3077 & 3088/Mum/2024 for Assessment Year 2011-12, 2012-13, 2018-19) 5 7. The Ld. DR argued and prayed for rejection of the MA filed by the assessee. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee has raised the grievance that certain observations recorded in the Tribunal’s order were factually incorrect and contrary to the submissions made by the Ld. AR during the course of hearing. The assessee has contended that the issue relating to the nature of its charitable objects had already been adjudicated by the Coordinate Bench in the assessee’s own case for AY 2010–11 in ITA No. 7461/Mum/2018, wherein it was held that the assessee is engaged in imparting education and, therefore, falls within the definition of “charitable purpose” under section 2(15) of the Act. However, in the impugned order, the Tribunal observed that the assessee falls within the category of advancement of any other object of general public utility, which according to the assessee is contrary to the earlier order of the Coordinate Bench and the submissions placed on record. Thus, the assessee has pleaded that the said observations constitute a mistake apparent from the record liable to be rectified under section 254(2) of the Act. After considering the submissions and the material placed before us, we find merit in the contention of the assessee that the issue regarding the nature of the assessee’s objects had already been examined by the Coordinate Bench in the assessee’s own case for the earlier year. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. (supra) has held that the purpose of section 254(2) is to ensure that no party suffers on account of a mistake committed by the Tribunal and that the Tribunal is duty- bound to rectify any mistake apparent from the record which causes prejudice to either party. In the present case, we are satisfied that the observations recorded in the impugned order require reconsideration in light of the earlier order of the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 3076, 3077 & 3088/Mum/2024 for Assessment Year 2011-12, 2012-13, 2018-19) 6 Coordinate Bench in the assessee’s own case. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and to rectify the apparent mistake on record, we recall the order of the Tribunal for adjudicating the issue afresh. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed. 9. In view of the above, the order dated 23/10/2024 is recalled. The appeal is ordered to be restored to its original no. in situ. The Registry is also directed to issue the fresh notice for hearing of both the parties. 10. In the result, the assessee’s MA Nos. 113, 114 & 115/Mum/2025 is allowed. Order pronounced on open court 16.03.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 16.03.2026 Aditi N. Pandare (Private Secretary) Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "