THE CIT (EXEM), MUMBAI V. HUHTAMAKI FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

MA 198/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking rectification of a previous order by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which had set aside the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) denying section 80G approval to the Huhtamaki Foundation. The Revenue contended that the ITAT had erred in not appreciating the lack of complete submissions by the assessee regarding its activities, which justified the CIT(E)'s original decision. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed made several submissions during the proceedings, and thus dismissed the Revenue's application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712774 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVITA P. KAUSHIK
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY MEHTA
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 80G

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No.198/MUM/2024 (Arising out of ITA No.1911/MUM/2023) (Assessment Year : 2022–23) ITO (E)(HQ)(Tech) Mumbai 6th Floor, Room No.605, MTNL Telephone Exchange Building, Cumballa Hill, Pedder Road, Mumbai - 400026 PAN- AAAPB7262M ……………. Applicant (Original Respondent) v/s M/s. Huhtamaki Foundation C/o 12A-06, 13th Floor, Parinee Crescenzo, C-38/39, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), S.O. Mumbai - 400051 …………….Respondent (Original Appellant) Assessee by : Shri Vijay Mehta Shri Harsh Bafna Revenue by : Ms. Kavita P . Kaushik, Sr. DR Date of Hearing – 25/07/2025 Date of Order – 29/07/2025 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. 1. The Revenue has filed the present Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\"), seeking rectification of the order dated 29.11.2023 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s appeal being ITA No.1911/Mum/2023. Printed from counselvise.com MA No.198/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2022-23) 2 2. We find that vide the aforesaid order dated 29.11.2013 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench, the order dated 30.03.2023 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [“learned CIT(E)”] denying the approval under section 80G of the Act to the assessee was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed. 3. In the present Miscellaneous Application, the Revenue has raised the following contentions: - “It is prayed that the above-mentioned order may be rectified on the following grounds/reasons: 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, Hon ITAT has erred in not appreciating that the assessee had failed to make submission during the proceedings for registration about the complete details of its activities before CIT(E) and CIT(E) was right well within the powers granted to arrive at the decision and make an order of rejection in light of being not satisfied that the activities of the assessee were not charitable in nature? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstance of the case and in low, Hon ITAT has erred in not appreciating thot the assessee has failed to make submission during the proceedings for registration about the complete details of its activities before CIT(E) and consequently, in view of the fresh submission of details the same could have been set-aside back to the file of CIT(E) for fresh consideration? 3. The appellant hereby prays that the order passed by the Hon'ble ITAT may be rectified.” 4. From the perusal of the submissions of the Revenue in the present Miscellaneous Application, it is at the outset evident that the Revenue has not pointed out any mistake in the Tribunal’s order, which is apparent from the record. From the perusal of the aforesaid contentions raised by the Revenue, we find that the sole basis of filing the present Miscellaneous Application is that the Co-ordinate Bench has erred in not appreciating that the assessee had failed to make submissions during the proceedings for registration before Printed from counselvise.com MA No.198/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2022-23) 3 the learned CIT(E). However, from the perusal of the record, we find that during the proceedings before the learned CIT(Exemption), various notices were issued, which were duly replied by the assessee and written submissions were filed on 17.02.2023, 03.03.2023, 16.03.2023, etc., which forms part of the factual paper book filed by the assessee in its appeal. We find that the learned CIT(E) in its order dated 30.03.2023, which was impugned in the assessee’s appeal, considered one of the submissions filed by the assessee on 23.03.2023. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the aforesaid contentions raised by the Revenue in the present Miscellaneous Application. During the hearing, the learned Authorized Representative placed on record the order dated 18.03.2025, whereby registration under section 80G of the Act has also now been granted to the assessee. 5. Therefore, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case as noted above, we do not find any merit in the present Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 6. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29/07/2025 Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 29/07/2025 Prabhat Printed from counselvise.com MA No.198/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2022-23) 4 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. Copy By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "