IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4676/MUM/2023 (A.Y. 2013-14)

ITA No. 4665/MUM/2023 (A.Y. 2016-17)

ITA No. 4664/MUM/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18)

The Bhatia General v/s. DCIT-(Exemption)-2(1), Hospital Mumbai बनाम Tukaram Javji Road, Room No. 608, 6^th Floor, Tardeo, Cumballa Hill, MTNL Mumbai-400007 Building, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAATT3440K ..

Appellant/ Respondent/

अपीलार्थी प्रतिवादी

Assessee by : Shri Viral Shah Revenue by : Ms. Monika H. Pande Date of Hearing 18.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH :-

These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

ITA No. 4676/Mum/2023 for AY 2013-14 “Validity of reassessment

1) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the reassessment order passed was illegal and bad in law on account of the fact that:

It was not based on any new tangible material, but on the basis of material already available on record It was due to a mere change of opinion on the same set of facts considered in the original assessment proceedings It amounted to review of the original assessment order, which is impermissible in law.

Denial of exemption under section 11 in respect of income of the Pharmacy Division

2) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the denial of exemption by the AO under section 11 in respect of the surplus of the Pharmacy division of the Hospital.

3) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the pharmacy division of the Trust was an integral part of the Hospital itself, the revenues being that portion of the hospital bill of in-house patients representing value of medicines used for their treatment while admitted in the hospital

4) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of the surplus of pharmacy division as business income, by applying the provisions of section 11(4A).

5) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there had never been any denial of exemption in respect of the pharmacy division in the past, thereby violating the principle of consistency.

Opportunity of Hearing Not Provided

6) Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not granting an opportunity of being heard through video conferencing, as mandated under the Faceless Scheme of Appeals, also violating the principles of natural justice.

Relief Sought:

Your Appellant prays that exemption be granted to the Appellant in respect of surplus of the Pharmacy division of the Hospital under section 11.

Your Appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify all or any the above grounds at or before the time of hearing.”

ITA No. 4665/Mum/2023 for AY 2016-17 Denial of exemption under section 11 in respect of income of the Pharmacy Division

1) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the denial of exemption by the AO under section 11 in respect of the surplus of the Pharmacy division of the Hospital.

2) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the pharmacy division of the Trust was an integral part of the Hospital itself, the revenues being that portion of the hospital bill of in-house patients representing value of medicines used for their treatment while admitted in the hospital

3) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of the surplus of pharmacy division as business income, by applying the provisions of section 11(4A).

4) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there had never been any denial of exemption in respect of the pharmacy division in the past, thereby violating the principle of consistency.

Denial of exemption for the income from Chemist shop

5) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the denial