STATE HEALTH SOCIETY, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

The following grounds have been raised by the assessee:

The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee is a Nodal Agency for implementing Managerial & Technical capacity building services on behalf of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of India and Government of Chhattisgarh. It had not filed any Income Tax Return (‘ITR’) of the relevant year though it had received interest income of Rs.1,56,63,819/- during the year under consideration. Therefore, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 148 of the Act to assess the escaped income of Rs.1,56,63,819/-. In compliance to the notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed its ITR of the relevant year on 15.09.2018 declaring ‘NIL’ income after claiming exemption under section 10(23C)(iv) of the Act. During the course of reopened assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO noticed that there was no approval for claiming exemption under section 10(23C)(iv) of the Act in the relevant year. However, the approval for claiming exemption under section 10(23C)(iv) of the Act was granted by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur vide letter F. No. CCIT/RPR/Tech/Approv./u/s10(23C)/01 with effect from AY 2012-13 onwards. Hence, the Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’), inferring that there was no valid approval for claimed exemption under section 10(23C)(iv) of the Act for the relevant year, denied te claim of exemption of Rs.6,04,81,730/- under section 10(23C)(iv) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal as under: “I have examined facts of the case and gone through the Order, GoA, SoF.

Before us, Shri Sunil Agrawal, CA, Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee drew our attention to the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the juri ictional issue. The Ld. AR submitted that the issue of reopening of the case was not dealt in by the Ld. CIT(A) and he had not adjudicated each ground of appeal raised before him. The Ld. AR further submitted that the notice under section 148 was issued by the ITO(E), Ward-1, Raipur, whereas the assessment was completed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Raipur. Such transfer of juri iction was without any order under section 127 of the Act. The Ld. AR therefore, contended that the impugned order was a non-speaking order. He prayed for remanding the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A). Further, the Ld. AR contended that for claim of exemption under section 10(23C)(iv) of the Act, the registration under section 12A of the Act was not mandatory condition; hence, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard was not in accordance with the law.

On the other hand, Shri CH. Rajeswara Reddy, Ld. Sr. DR defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. On our specific query, he reluctantly appeared in agreement for remanding the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for afresh/denovo adjudication.

We have heard both parties and have perused the material available on the record. We have taken note of the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided each ground of appeal after hearing the assessee and discussing the issues in detail and his reasons for agreeing with the assessment order and dismissing each ground of appeal though he/she, as per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, is obliged to dispose of the appeal in writing with well-reasoned order on each point of determination arisen for his consideration. It is evident from the perusal of section 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act that the CIT(A) is required to apply his/her mind to all the issues arisen from the assessment order, whether or not such issues have been raised by the assessee before him/her.

We have taken note of the fact that the assessee has not ensured proper and sufficient compliance before the Ld. CIT(A). The issue of exemption under section 10(23C)(iv) of the Act, if any, has to be decided after the adjudication of juri ictional issue. However, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the juri ictional issue. He decided only the issue of exemption under section 10(23C)(iv) of the Act and dismissed the entire appeal without touching the juri ictional issue. The same cannot be held justified. Keeping in view the facts of the case, we, without offering any comment on merit of the case, find the impugned order deem fit to set aside and remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the case afresh/denovo, in accordance with the law, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We, therefore, order accordingly. Needless to say that the appellant assessee has to cooperate in remitted appellate proceedings.

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The Pr. CIT, Raipur (C.G.) िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, 4. रायपुर/ DR, ITAT, Raipur गाड" फाईल / Guard file. 5. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, Hem Kumari //// Kumari Shrivastava, PS, Shrivastava, PS, ITAT, Raipur Date: 2026.05.08 ITAT, Raipur 10:18:51 +05'30' (Private Secretary) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur