" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4134/MUM/2026 (A.Y.: 2015-16) (Physical hearing) SEEPZ, Special Economic Zone Authority, SEEPZ Service Centre, MIDC Central Road, Seepz S.O., Mumbai-400096. PAN: AAAGS0028P Vs DCIT (Exemption) -Circle-2 608, 6th Floor, Cumbala Hills MTNL TE Building, Pedder Road, Dr Gopal Rao Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai 400026. Appellant /Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee by Shri. Suchek Anchalia &Ms Vaishali More CA (s)/ AR, Revenue by Shri. BasavarajHiremath CIT-DR, Date of hearing 25.09.2026 Date of pronouncement 28.09.2026 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) New Delhi/ ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [for short “CIT(A)”] dated 12.02.2026, for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the order passed by the DCIT – Circle – 25(1), Mumbai (‘Ld. AO’), without appreciating the fact that notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act, issued by the ITO-22(1)(3), Mumbai, who lacked valid jurisdiction over the case and in contravention of Instruction No. 1/2011 [F. No. 187/12/2010- IT(A-I)] issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the order passed by the Ld. AO, without appreciating the fact that the Ld. AO i.e. DCIT – Circle – 25(1), Mumbai jurisdictional officer in the case of assessee, failed to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, and Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 4134/Mum/2026 (AY 2015-16) SEEPZ, Special Economic Zone 2 completed the assessment on the basis of invalid notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act by the ITO-22(1)(3), Mumbai, who lacked valid jurisdiction over the case. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), erred in not considering the Revised return filed by the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings on 13.02.2017. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), erred in not accepting the appellant’s claim u/s 10(46) of the Act made through filing Revised return during the course of assessment proceedings on 11.03.2016, without appreciating the fact that the assessee is eligible to make a new claim through filing Revised ITR as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 204 CTR (SC) 182. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), erred in denying the exemption u/s 10(46) of the Act to the appellant, without appreciating the fact that the Appellant is a Local Authority, set up by an Act of Parliament and the income of the Appellant arises exclusively from lease rent and administrative fees from unit-holders in SEZ and surplus if any is entirely utilised for export promotion and infrastructure development of the SEZ and exempted u/s 10(46) of the Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), erred in denying the exemption u/s 10(46) of the Act to the appellant for the relevant assessment year i.e. AY 2013-14 in contravention to the CBDT Notification No. 99/2017/F. No. 300196/5/2016-ITA-I, as well as contrary to the settled legal position and various judicial precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, without appreciating the fact that any beneficial circular or notification issued in favour of the assessee is required to be applied retrospectively from the date of enactment of the relevant provision. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), erred in holding the status of the appellant as Government Company, without appreciating the fact that the Ld. AO in his assessment order passed u/s 143(3) Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 4134/Mum/2026 (AY 2015-16) SEEPZ, Special Economic Zone 3 of the Act, dated 29.12.2017 had accepted the appellant’s status as a ‘Local Authority’ established under the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, being an entity set up by an Act of Parliament and governed by the Ministry of Commerce. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), erred in invoking the provisions of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) u/s 115JB of the Act in the case of appellant on incorrect presumptions, without appreciating the fact that the appellant is a Local Authority, set Page 3 of 3 up by an Act of Parliament, the provisions of MAT u/s 115JB of the Act are not applicable to the Appellant. 9. The appellant craves to add, alter, classify, reclassify, delete or modify any of the above grounds of appeal and requests to consider each of the above grounds without prejudice to one another.” 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and the record perused. The learned authorised representative (AR) of the assessee submits thatthe assessee is an authority created through an Act of Parliament i.e. The Special Economic Zone Act 2005 (SEZ Act). It is created to promote the SEZs of its territorial jurisdiction. The utilisation of its income is for implementation of the Central Government policies related to SEZs. Authority is under administrative control of Ministry of commerce and Industry. PAN no of the authority at the time of incorporation had been inadvertently taken as applicable to company. The assessee- authority subsequently obtained new PAN, as applicable to local Authority. The assessee-authority got the exemption under section 10(46) of the Income Tax Act vide notification No. S.O.4010 (E) dated 22/12/2017 in respect of its income w.e.f. F.Y. 2015-16. Subsequently Authority has applied with CBDT to allow the exemption with Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 4134/Mum/2026 (AY 2015-16) SEEPZ, Special Economic Zone 4 retrospective effect from the date of enactment of the section/date of incorporation of the authority and the said application is pending. The assessee initially filed it return of income declaring income of Rs. 12,42,74,450/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed on 29.12.2017 in accepting return income. Before passing assessment order, the assessee filed the revised return vide acknowledgement No.619329101130217 dated 13/02/2017 claiming refund of Rs. 3,84,19,940/- in old PAN based on the status as Local Authority as against the company in the original return. Authority has also filed revised return in paper form on 14/03/2016 claiming exemption under section 10(46) within time allowed and requested to allow to file the return electronically in new PAN. Assessing officer (AO)has assessed the income at Rs 12,42,74,450/- without allowing exemption under section 10(46) of the Income Tax Act and based on status as company instead of Local Authority and calculated tax accordingly in the Income Tax computation form. The AO has not taken cognizance of revised return of income. The main grievance of the assessee was that assessee is not covered by Minimum Alternative Tax (MAT) provisions being a local authority. Aggrieved by the action of AO, the assessee filed appeal before ld CIT(A). The ld CIT(A) held that no acknowledgement of revised return of income was not filed. Consequently, held that the exemption under section 10(46) of the Act is not automatic but has to be notified by the CBDT on certain conditions. The assessee had got itself notified by CBDT since A.Y 16- 17 onwards only. The ld AR of the assessee submits that the lower authorities have not considered the revised return filed on 17.02.2017, therefore, the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 4134/Mum/2026 (AY 2015-16) SEEPZ, Special Economic Zone 5 matter may be restored back to the file of CIT(A) or AO to consider revised return as it was filed in time and to pass the order after considering the claim of the assessee. The assessee may be allowed liberty to raise all factual and other legal issue before lower authorities. 3. On the other hand, the ld CIT-DR for the revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities. On our specific prima-facia view that despite filing revised return within time the AO has not taken cognizance of revised return and now limited prayer of the assessee is to consider revised return. The ld CIT-DR for the revenue submits that in case, the bench is of the view that the revised return of the assessee required consideration, in such case the matter may be sent to AO instead of ld CIT(A). As the ld CIT(A) may require the remand report and in order to avoid such technical issue the AO will be in better position to consider the matter afresh. 4. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the record of the case carefully. We find that the AO while passing the assessment order has not taken cognizance of revised return of income filed on 17.02.2017, copy of which is available on record. The ld CIT(A) held that there is no acknowledgement of revised return of income on record, thus he also not considered the grievances of the assessee raised in various grounds of appeal before him. There is no dispute that for subsequent assessment years the assessee is allowed exemption by CBDT. Thus, considering the peculiar fact of the year under consideration, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of Jurisdictional AO (JAO) to consider the revised return of income and to pass assessment order afresh and in accordance with Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 4134/Mum/2026 (AY 2015-16) SEEPZ, Special Economic Zone 6 law. The JAO may consider that the facts that in subsequent period the assessee is allowed exemption under section 10(46). Needless to direct that before passing assessment order afresh, the JAO shall allow fair andreasonable opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim. The assessee is also directed to provide all the details and evidence to AO to substantiate its claim. In the result, ground No. 3 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. No other grounds of appeals were pressed or argued by the ld. AR of the assessee, hence, all such grounds of appeal are treated as not pressed. 5. In result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open Court on 28.09.2026 Sd/- Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd /- Sd/- PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 28/09/2026 Self Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT Mumbai and (5) Guard file. By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "