Jaslok Hospital And Research Centre , vs Assessee

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - 'J' BENCH सव[ौी ǒवजयपाल राव, Ûयाियक सदःय एवं राजेÛि, लेखा सदःय Before S/Sh. Vijay Pal Rao, Judicial Member & Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member MA No.381/Mum/2014 (Arising out of ITA No.6944/Mum/2008)-Assessment Year 2005-06 Jaslok Hospital and Research Centre, DDIT (E)-II(1), 15, Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Sir Piramal Chambers, Mumbai. V.T.Marg, Mumbai-400026 Vs. PAN:AAMPS4024Q (अपीलाथȸ /Appellant) (ू×यथȸ / Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Nitesh Joshi & Indira Angel Anand Respondent by : Shri M. Padmanaban सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 12-12-2014 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 16-01-2015 आदे श / O R D E R Per Rajendra, A.M.लेखा सदःय राजेÛि के अनुसार:

Vide its application,dated 19.02.2014,the assessee has filed a Miscellaneous Application stating that there were mistakes apparent from the record in the order of the Tribunal dated 20.03.2013, that same had to be rectified as per the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. In its application the assessee has stated that income of Research Association,approved for the time being for the purpose of section 35(1)(ii) of the Act,was exempt under section 10(21) of the Act,that research wing of the assessee had the approval as required u/s 35(2)(ii) upto 31.03.2002, that at the time of passing the assessment order application filed by it for notification u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act was pending before the CBDT,that a note was placed in the return of income filed by the assessee in this regard,that considering the pendency of application made by the assessee the Assessing Officer (AO)denied exemption claimed u/s.10(21)of the Act,that the AO also denied the assessee's alternative claim for grant of exemption u/s 11 and assessed income of the assessee as business income,that during the pendency of the appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) the assessee was notified as the approved institution for the purpose of section 35(1)(ii) of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2002,that the FAA allowed the claim made by the assessee u/s.10(21) of the Act,that with respect to income of the Hospital the FAA came to the conclusion that assessee would be entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the Act,that the Tribunal upheld the assessee's claim for exemption u/s.11 of the Act.It was further mentioned that while passing the order on 20.03.2013, the Tribunal had held as under:

"Learned CIT(A) while allowing the appeal of the assessee has also held that exemption u/s 10(21) /10(23C) along with the exemption u/s 11 of the Act is allowed,whereas no issue was before the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of exemption u/s 10(21) and 1)(23C) because the AO disallowed the claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act."

2.During the course of hearing before us. Authorised Representative of the assessee contended that the assessee had filed return of income claiming exemption u/s 10(21) of the Act, that in the return of income the exemption was claimed by way of a note, that by way of ground 3.1 it has raised the issue with respect to grant of exemption u/s 10(21) of the Act before the FAA, that the FAA by his order dated 30.09.2008 had recorded the fact that subsequently CBDT had granted approval to the assessee in accordance with the section 35(1)(ii) of the Act, that income earned by the research wing of the assessee was entitled to exemption u/s 10(21) of the Act, that the Tribunal had incorrectly assumed that claim was not made by the assessee u/s 10(21) of the Act before the FAA,that on 12.12.2014 on a query raised by the Bench it had filed a copy of notification dated 27th June 2008 issued by the Central Government granting the assessee 2 M.A.No.381/Mum/2014 Jaslok Hospital and Research Centre

approval u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2002, that the notification showed that it was effective from 01.04.2002, that no terminal period was mentioned in the approval letter, that the approval granted w.e.f. 01.04.2002 would continue till it was withdrawn as per the Circular No. 1/2007 dated 27.04.2007.Departmental Representative (DR) left the issue to the discretion of the Bench.

3.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We find that the assessee had raised the issue before the FAA with regard to exemption u/s 10(21) of the Act. In these circumstances,we are of the opinion that there is a mistake apparent on record in the order passed by the Tribunal on 20.03.2013.Therefore,Registry is directed to fix the case for hearing on 23.02.2015 before the regular bench to pass appropriate order with regard to claim made by the assessee u/s.10(21) of the Act.We are clarifying that we are recalling our order for the limited purpose only i.e.to decide the issue of entitlement of exemption u/s 10(21) of the Act.

As a result,Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee stands allowed. पǐरणामतः िनधा[ǐरती Ʈारा दाǔखल Ǒकया गया ǒवǒवध आवदे न पऽ ःवीकृ त Ǒकया जाता है . Order pronounced in the open court on 16th, January,2015.

आदे श कȧ घोषणा खुले Ûयायालय मɅ Ǒदनांक 16 tuojh 2015 को कȧ गई ।

Sd/- Sd/- (ǒवजयपाल राव / VIJAY PAL RAO) (राजेÛि / RAJENDRA) Ûयाियक सदःय / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदःय / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

मुंबई/Mumbai,Ǒदनांक/Date: 16.01.2015 SK आदे श कȧ ूितिलǒप अमेǒषत/ षत Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. Assessee /अपीलाथȸ 2. Respondent /ू×यथȸ

3.The concerned CIT(A)/संबƨ अपीलीय आयकर आयुƠ, 4.The concerned CIT /संबƨ आयकर आयुƠ

5. DR "J" Bench, ITAT, Mumbai /ǒवभागीय ूितिनिध ts खंडपीठ,आ.अ.Ûयाया.मुंबई

6. Guard File/गाड[ फाईल स×याǒपत ूित //True Copy// आदे शानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार Dy./Asst. Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई /ITAT, Mumbai