IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.5666/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2009-10)

The Institute of Marine vs Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Engineers India, Mumbai, IMEI House, Sector 19, Plot 94, Room NO.699, 6^th Floor Nerul, Navi Mumbai – 400 706 MTNL Bldgh, Cumballa Hill, Peddar PAN : AAATT3254B Road, Mumbai-400 026 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Karthik Natarajan, CA Respondent by : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, SR DR Date of hearing : 11/11/2025 Date of pronouncement : 17/12/2025 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM):

The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter, ‘Ld.CIT(A)] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2009-10, date of order 17/07/2025. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the Learned Income-tax Officer (E)-2(4), Mumbai (in short, ‘Ld.AO’) passed under section 143(3) read with section 254 of the Act, date of order 29/09/2017.

2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-

“Being aggrieved by the order passed w/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated July 17, 2025, for the AY 2009-10 ('the order) by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ the "L. CIT(A)], your appellant presents the following grounds of appeal, which are without prejudice to each other:

1. In the facts of the case and under the circumstances and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)

has erred in upholding the denial of your appellant's claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Lit. Income-tax Officer Exemptions), 2141, Mumbai (The Ld. Assessing Officer) while passing the assessment order.

2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the le CIT(A) has erred in t appreciating your appellant's plea that the order passed by the id. AD in bod in law since it had ignored the directions of the Hon'ble income tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai

3. In the facts of the case and under the circumstances and in law, the Ld. CITA) has erred in not appreciating your appellant's plea that the order passed by the Id. AD bad in law since it had not considered the submissions made and evidences find on record by Your Appellant

4. In the facts of the case and under the circumstances and in ise, the L. CIT(A) has grossly erred in remarking that it was not necessary for the id. Ad to put each and every submission made by Your Appellant in the body of the order to prove that he was considering them, whereas the fact remained that id. AO had merely redacted from the earlier assessment order passed in the original round of litigation and did not establish on record that the dominant object of tour Appellant was earn profit try engaging itself in business. commercial activity and that it was not a charitable institution, in the present impugned assessment order

5. In the facts of the case and under the circumstances and in law, the LD. CITEA)

has grossly erred in deducting that the objects of your appellant were not intended for educational purposes and that the activities of your appellant during the impugned Assessment year were purely commercial in nature and not for educational purposes.

6. In the facts of the cave and under the circumstances and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)

erred in not considering the judicial precedents cited by your appellant whereas the judicial precedents relied upon by the Ld. CTT(A) were distinguishable in Your Appellant's facts.

7. Your appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify alter and/or delete any of the above grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the original assessment was duly completed u/s 143(3) on 28/12/2011. In the assessment, the Ld.AO rejected the assessee’s claim under section 11 of the Act. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal bef