IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "E" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 5954/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-2014)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai 608, 6^th Floor, MTNL Building, Cumbulla Hill, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026.Maharashtra …………. Appellant Vs Tata Education and Development Trust Bombay house, Ground floor, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai- 400001. Maharashtra [PAN:AABTT5628C] …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Department : Shri Biswanath Das For the Respondent/Assessee : Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Shri. Atual T. Suraiya Date Conclusion of hearing : 17.02.2025 Pronouncement of order : 30.04.2025

O R D E R

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1. The present appeal preferred by the Revenue is directed against the order, dated 19/09/2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 31/03/2022, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2013-2014.

2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal :

“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.

CIT(A)has erred in allowing the exemption to the assessee u/s 11(1)(c) of the Act, ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to fulfil the condition under section 11(1)(c) of the Act by making foreign donations of Rs. 27,67,50,000/- during AY 2013-14 to Harward Business School, USA and hence cannot be treated as application for charitable purpose in India?

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.

CIT(A) has erred in allowing the exemption to the assessee u/s 11(1)(c) of the Act, ignoring the fact that the Harward Business School, USA is not promoting any "international welfare in which India is interested?

3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.

CIT(A) has erred in allowing the exemption to the assessee u/s 11(1)(c) of the Act, ignoring the fact that the CBDT vide its order dated 10.11.2015 explicitly mentions that such 'purpose' falling u/s 11(1)(c) is subject to verification during course of assessment proceedings and that the assessee has failed to bring it on record during the reassessment proceedings?”

2.1. The Assessee has filed application under Rule 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 [for short ’ITAT Rules’] On the issue of validity of reassessment proceeded decided against the Assessee by the CIT(A):

“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have held that reassessment proceedings are without jurisdiction and bad in law in terms of sections 147 to 150 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”

3. The relevant facts in brief are that vide Assessment Order, dated

30/03/2022, assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act was framed on the Assessee-Trust for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 assessing total income of the Assessee at INR.25,13,84,024/- as against the returned loss of INR.2,53,65,977/- after making addition of INR.27,67,50,000/- in relation to alleged foreign remittance made by the Assessee-

Trust to Harward Business School, USA.

4. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings and the addition made by the Assessing Officer by rejecting Assessee’s claim under Section 11(1)(c) of the Act in respect of application of Income of INR.27,67,50,000/-. It was contended before the Learned CIT(A) that on merits the Tribunal had decided identical issue in favour of the Assessee in appeals for the Assessment Years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. Vide order, dated 19/09/2024, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee. While the challenge to the validity of reassessment proc