IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4204/Del/2024, A.Y. 2014-15 ITA No.4203/Del/2024, A.Y. 2015-16 International Commission on Assistant/Deputy Irrigation and Drainage Employees Commissioner of Income Vs.

Provident Fund (ICID PF Trust), Tax, Exemption Circle-2, 48, Nyaya Marg, Chanakyapuri, Civic Centre, New Delhi J L Nehru Road, New Delhi PAN: AAATI0119A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by Shri Hemant Kumar, CA Smt. Renu Suri, CA Respondent by Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date of Pronouncement 20/06/2025 ORDER PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM Common grounds and facts arise in the above captioned appeals of the assessee; therefore, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order.

2. These appeals for Assessment Years (AY) 2014-15 and 2015-16 filed by the assessee are directed against orders dated 07.05.2024 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, New Delhi [CIT(A)].

3. In both appeals, vide various grounds, the assessee has challenged disallowance of exemption under section 10(25)(ii) of the Income Tax act, 1961 (Act).

4. The relevant facts giving rise to these appeals are that the assessee, formed by the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID) for welfare of its employees, filed its Income Tax Returns (ITRs) for both years declaring NIL income after claiming exemption/deduction under section 11 and also under section 10 of the Act. As per the appellant, it is a case of a provident fund trust duly approved under Rule 3(i) of part ‘A’ of the Fourth Schedule of the Act. As per ITRs, the assessee has claimed exemption under section 11 of the Act [in Column No. 1 of part A and GEN of the ITR] as well as under section 10(21), 10(22B), 10(23A), 10(23B), 10(23C)(iv), 10(23C)(v), 10(23C)(vi), 10(23C)(via)] of the Act [in Column 12 of part B of TI (Total Income)]. These ITRs were processed under section 143(1) of the Act wherein the AO (CPC) disallowed the claim of exemption under section 10 of the Act on the reasoning that the assessee was not eligible for said exemption under specified sub-sections of section 10 of the Act duly mentioned in ITRs. Later, the assessee filed applications under section 154 of the Act for rectification of the processing under section 143(1) of the Act for allowing exemption under section 10(25)(ii) of the Act. The said rectification applications were rejected on the reasoning that there was neither a prima facie mistake apparent from the record as there was no claim of exemption under section

10(25)(ii) of the Act in ITRs nor the assessee was a registered Trust or Institution under section 12A of the Act.

4.1 Aggrieved with orders under section 154 of the Act, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A), who vide orders dated 12.12.2019 dismissed these appeals. Both appellate orders of the Ld. CIT(A) were challenged before the ITAT, who vide order dated 26.08.2022 in ITA No. 703 and 704/Del/2020 remitted the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) as under:

“7.9 The CPC while processing the return u/s. 143(1) of the Act, has limited jurisdiction and empowered to process the return as per material available and/or claim made by the Assessee in return of Income which has been done in this case. The mistake apparent from record can be rectified u/s. 154 of the Act but mistake must be obvious and patent and not something which can be established by a long- drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be two opinions. Mistake as such though apparently not visible from the order of process u/s 143(1) of the Act in this case, however, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as claimed by the Assessee and not refuted by the Ld. DR that the Assessee has been duly recognized as Provident Fund Institution under Rule 3(1) of Part 'A' of the 4th schedule of the Act, by the Ld. Commissioner of In