SRI SARVAMANGALA RAJARAJESWARI CHARITABLE TRUST,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS,, COIMBATORE

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ‘बी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री जॉजज जॉजज के., उपाध्यक्ष एवं श्री गगन गोयल लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE HONOURABLE GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1521/Chny/2026 ननिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2020-21 Sri Sarvamangala Rajarajeswari v. The Assistant Commissioner of Charitable Trust, Income Tax (Exemptions), No.15/23, Bharathi Park Road, Coimbatore. 8th Cross Saibaba Mission Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641 011. [PAN: AACTS7104B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Ms. T. V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate, Ld. AR प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT, Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 01.07.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 29.07.2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. Addl. / JCIT (A) (hereinafter referred as the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A)’) Kochi dated 13.01.2026 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred as the ‘AY’) 2020-21.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. For that the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and at any rate against the principles of equity, natural justice and fair play. 2. For that the order passed by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer u/s.154 in refusing to rectify the mistakes apparent on record is bad in law. 3. For that the order passed u/s. 154 is a non-speaking order and hence bad in law.

ITA No.1521/Chny/2026 (2020-21) Sri Sarvamangala Rajarajeswari Charitable Trust 4. For that the National Faceless Appeal Centre failed to consider that the appellant has made certain inadvertent typographical mistakes while filing the return of income, which is a mistake apparent on record and ought to be rectified.

ITA No.1521/Chny/2026 (2020-21) Sri Sarvamangala Rajarajeswari Charitable Trust The above grounds are taken without prejudice to one another. For these grounds and such other grounds that may be urged before or during the hearing of the appeal it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal may be pleased to:

(a) Allow the rectification of typographical errors that have crept in the income tax return. (b) Allow the application of income claimed by the appellant to the extent of Rs. 5, 33,198/- (c) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal may deem fit. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed all forms and certificate for the A.Y. 2020-21 within the due date, i.e. audit report in form no.10B on 10.12.2020 along with form no. 9A and Income Tax Return, ITR 7. While filing the return of income, certain inadvertent mistakes were made in the Form ITR-7 which led to the exemption under section 11 not being appropriately reflected in the return. The mistakes are described herein below:

i) ITR-7 – Part B-TI item 4(v) Page No.28

Actual standard accumulation 15% total receipts amount to Rs. 1,52,289/- only. This amount was wrongly filed as Rs. 6, 20, 720/-

ii) ITR-7 – Part B-TI item 4(vi) Page No.29

This column should be filed only in the case of income applied outside India with CBDT approval. But this was wrongly filled at the time of filing return.

iii) ITR-7 – Part B-TI item 4(iv) Page No.29

Rs. 3, 29, 776/- has to be filled in the above said column “Amount deemed to have been applied”. But only “0” was filled.

ITA No.1521/Chny/2026 (2020-21) Sri Sarvamangala Rajarajeswari Charitable Trust and order of the Addl. /JCIT (A), Kochi. It is observed that the Form No. 9A, Form No. 10B and ITR Form No. 7 was filed simultaneously by the assessee on 10.12.2020. Here, it is pertinent to mention that the Form No. 9A and Form No. 10B are integral parts of the ITR Form No. 7 and return form alone can’t be considered in isolation by the department in proceedings u/s. 143(1)/ 143(3) of the Act.

i) Corpus donations Rs. 4, 68, 430/-

ii) Other income Rs. 10, 15,264/-

Total Rs. 14, 83,694/-

Table showing the application towards Objects & Others:

Particulars Amount (In Rs.) Total Receipts 10,15,264/- Less : 15% Allowed for carry over 1,52,290/- Balance 85% 8,62,974/- Actual application 5,33,198/- Not applied during the year – Form 9A filed. 3,29,776/- In view of the above, there is no iota of doubt that the assessee was entitled for the benefit of section 12A of the Act but the same was denied because of a typographical error committed in ITR Form No.7. Moreover, the statutory forms filed along with ITR Form No.7 i.e. Form No.9A and Form No.10B as mentioned (supra) are integral part of ITR Form No.7. Hence, the proceedings u/s. 143(1) of the Act by

ITA No.1521/Chny/2026 (2020-21) Sri Sarvamangala Rajarajeswari Charitable Trust the CPC, Bengaluru is not tenable in law. Further, in view of the above facts, as hold (supra) that the statutory forms filed along with ITR Form No.7 i.e. Form No.9A and Form No.10B as mentioned (supra) are integral part of ITR Form No.7, the action of the JAO is also not sustainable. 5. Here we relied upon Circular No. 14(XL-35) of 1955, dated: 11.04.1955, i.e. “Department not to take benefit of assessee’s ignorance”

Officers of the department must not take advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his rights. It is one of their duties to assist a taxpayer in every reasonable way, particularly in the matter of claiming and securing reliefs and in this regard the officers should take the initiative in guiding a taxpayer where proceedings or other particulars before them indicate that some refund or relief is due to him. This attitude would, in the long run, benefit the department, for it would inspire confidence in him that he may be sure of getting a square deal from the department. Although, therefore, the responsibility for claiming refunds and reliefs rests with the assessees on whom it is imposed by law, officers should— (a) Draw their attention to any refunds or reliefs to which they appear to be clearly entitled but which they have omitted to claim for some reason or other; (b) Freely advise them when approached by them as to their rights and liabilities and as to the procedure to be adopted for claiming refunds and reliefs.

ITA No.1521/Chny/2026 (2020-21) Sri Sarvamangala Rajarajeswari Charitable Trust 8. The powers of the FAA and applicability of Circular No. 14(XL-35) of 1955, dated: 11.04.1955 has been discussed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and various High Courts including Jurisdictional High Court as under:  [2000] 109 Taxman 225 (SC) CIT v. Mahendra Mills/Arun Textile ‘C’/Humphreys/ Glasgow Consultants  [2019] 103 taxmann.com 364 (Mad.) Mrs. Kannammal v. Income-tax Officer-Ward-1(1), Tirupur, “The disposal of the request for stay by the assessee leaves much to be desired. The Assessing Officer ought to have taken note of the conditions precedent for the grant of stay as well as the Circulars issued by the CBDT and passed a speaking order. Of course the application seeking stay filed by the assessee is itself cryptic. However, as noted by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Mahindra Mills [2000] 243 ITR 56/109 Taxman 225 in the context of grant of depreciation, the Circular of the Central Board of Revenue (No. 14 (SL - 35) of 1955, dated 11-4-1955) required the officers of the Department 'to assist a taxpayer in every reasonable way, particularly in the matter of claiming and securing reliefs. …. Although, therefore, the responsibility for claiming refunds and reliefs rests with the assessees on whom it is imposed by law, officers should -(a) draw their attention to any refunds or reliefs to which they appear to be clearly entitled but which they have omitted to claim for some reason or other……'. Thus, notwithstanding that the assessee may not have specifically invoked the three parameters for the grant of stay, it is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to examine the existence of a prima facie case as well as call upon the assessee to demonstrate financial stringency, if any and arrive at the balance of convenience in the matter. [Para 14]”  [1983] 15 Taxman 539 (Ker.) Parekh Brothers v. CIT, “Whether an assessee is entitled to a deduction or not will depend on the relevant provision of law relating thereto and not on the view which the assessee might take of his rights, or the method and manner in which accounts are kept or an entry made in the books or the way in which the claim for deduction is pleaded or made. No doubt for the exercise of powers under section 263, the order should be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, but there is no such requirement for exercising power under section 264. There is no indication in the Act to show that the Commissioner can revise only an erroneous order in exercise of the powers under section 264.

The revisional jurisdiction may be a part of or a specie of appellate jurisdiction and not part of original jurisdiction, but on that basis, it would not follow that all powers so exercisable by the appellate authority, with all limitations inherent therein, would be equally applicable in construing the scope and content of the revisional power under section 264. The scope of the appellate power specified in section 251 and the scope of the revisional power vested in the Commissioner under section 264 are entirely different.

Again, Circular No. 14 (XL-35), dated 11-4-1955, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which was binding on the department, enjoined upon the 'Officers of the department' which would certainly include the Commissioner, to bear in mind the spirit of the circular in affording relief to the assessee, as indicated therein. Atleast when the matter was brought to their notice, without raising technical objections, the matter should receive attention.

ITA No.1521/Chny/2026 (2020-21) Sri Sarvamangala Rajarajeswari Charitable Trust In the instant case, even though a mistake was committed by the assessee and it was detected by him after the order of assessment was made, and the order of assessment was not erroneous, nonetheless, in view of the legal position stated above, it was open to the assessee to file a revision before the Commissioner under section 264 and claim appropriate relief. But it should not be forgotten that the power to be exercised under section 264 is a revisionary one. The limitations implicit in the exercise of such power are well known. The jurisdiction is discretionary. Whether in a particular case, on the basis of facts disclosed, the Commissioner will exercise his jurisdiction and interfere in the matter is a matter of discretion. It is certainly a judicial discretion vested in the Commissioner to be exercised in accordance with law. The impugned order of the Commissioner was, therefore, quashed and he was directed to entertain and dispose of the petition in accordance with law. 9. So, in view of the above facts and settled legal position, we are of the opinion that the Ld. Addl. /JCIT (A), Kochi has committed a mistake by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Whereas, the assessee was entitled for the benefit as envisaged in the provisions of section 11/12A of the Act. In view of this, relevant grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

Order pronounced on the 29th day of July, 2026, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (जॉजज जॉजज के.) (गगन गोयल) (GEORGE GEORGE K.) (GAGAN GOYAL) उपाध्यक्ष /VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चेन्नई/Chennai, ददनाांक/Dated: 29th July, 2026. KB आदेश की प्रततललपप अग्रेपषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT, Chennai /Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. पवभागीय प्रतततनधि/DR 5. गार्ड फाईल/GF

ITA No.1521/Chny/2026 (2020-21) Sri Sarvamangala Rajarajeswari Charitable Trust