IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.998 & 999/Bang/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

Respondent by : Sri Tamil Selvam S., D.R.

Date of Hearing : 01.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 01.07.2024

O R D E R

PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These two appeals by assessee are directed against order of NFAC for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15. The grounds of appeal in both the appeals are common in nature except for figures and hence, these appeals are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.

2. The grounds of appeal in ITA No.998/Bang/2024 are reproduced as under:

1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)

passed under Section 250 of the Act in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case.

2. The authorities below are not justified in determining the total income of the appellant at Rs. 5,73,91,152/- as against NIL income declared by the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), NFAC Delhi without providing opportunity of hearing to the appellant is in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently the order passed is required to be set aside on the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is passed without providing adequate opportunity to file written submissions and consequently the order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice on the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in passing the order under section 250 of the Act after providing opportunity of hearing on 17.03.2020 vide hearing notice under section 250 of the Act dated 09.03.2020 and the appellant sought adjournment on the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the detailed statement of facts filed by the appellant and consequently the order passed under section 250 of the Act is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice on the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in law in passing the impugned order, without granting another opportunity of hearing for filing the written submissions on each of the grounds of appeal and relevant documents in support of t e case of the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case.

8. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is not justified in law in holding that the appellant activity is covered by part (b) of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act and consequently denying the exemption claimed by the appellant under section 11 is not in accordance with law on the facts and circumstances of the case.

9. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is not justified in law in holding that the income is subject to service tax and consequently the appellant is hit by part (b) of the first proviso to section 2(15) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case.

10. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is not justified in law in confirming the treatment of the bank interest income of Rs. 1,99,25,941 /- as business income by the learned Assessing officer by invoking the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case.

11. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is not justified in law in confirming the treatment of rental income of the appellant as business income