MOHAN LAL SUKHADIA UNIVERSITY,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, UDAIPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 40/Jodh/2023 (Assessment Year – 2017-18) Mohan Lal Sukhadia University ITO (Exemption) 1 MLSU Pratapnagar, Udaipur Udaipur-313001 PAN No. AAAJM 1548 D Assessee by None Ms. Shivani Bansal, CIT-DR (Physical) Revenue by Date of Hearing 04 / 08 / 2026. Date of Pronouncement 07 / 08 / 2026. ORDER PER: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, V.P.: This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 20.01.2023 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, NFAC, Delhi for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

2 ITA No. 40/Jodh/2023 Asst. Year: 2017-18 However, on each of the dates the appeal was fixed for hearing, the assessee either remained absent or sought adjournment. Even after lapse of three years, the assessee is not ready to represent its case. When the matter was called for hearing today i.e. 4th August, 2026, on repeated call, no one came to represent the assessee. The appeal involves denial of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act, however, even after lapse of three years, the assessee has not shown even a iota of seriousness in getting the appeal heard and disposed of. This reveals the recalcitrant attitude of the assessee. Since, sufficient opportunities have already been extended to the assessee, no further leniency should be shown. Accordingly, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee with the assistance of Ld. Departmental representative and based on material available on record.

3 ITA No. 40/Jodh/2023 Asst. Year: 2017-18 38,58,68,598/-. Thus, from the aforesaid facts the Assessing Officer found that the grants received from the Government constitutes 36.47% of total receipts. Whereas, as per the conditions of Section 10(23C)(iiiab), for claiming exemption under the said provision. The assessee must have received during the year grants from Government not less than 50% of the total receipts. Therefore, the Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice to the assessee to explain why the exemption claimed should not be disallowed. The explanation furnished by the assessee was not to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. Hence, he proceeded to complete the assessment disallowing assessee’s claim of exemption. While doing so, he disallowed expenditure claimed to the extent of Rs. 3,90,00,000/-. Thus, the total income was determined at Rs. 6,35,357/-. Against the assessment order so passed, assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. As could be seen from the observations of the First Appellate Authority, despite multiple opportunities being given to the assessee to represent its case, the assessee never complied. Hence, the First Appellate Authority was compelled to dispose of the appeal ex-parte and while doing so, he confirmed the decision of the Assessing Officer. The situation remains identical before us. Despite more than reasonable opportunities having been given, the assessee has failed to

4 ITA No. 40/Jodh/2023 Asst. Year: 2017-18 appear and represent its case before us. Thus, in absence of any effective representation by the assessee to establish its claim that it has fulfilled the conditions of Section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act, we are constraint to uphold the decision of Ld. First Appellate Authority.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07/08/2026.

Sd/ Sd/- (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Dated : 07/08/2026. Nimisha, Sr. PS True Copy

Copies to : (1) The appellant. (2) The respondent. (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File BY ORDER,