SARALIA VAISH HINDI MAHAJANI SCHOOL,AMBALA CITY vs. ITO, CPC BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1559/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 May 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that no one appeared for the assessee. The appeal was adjudicated based on the records and the submissions of the Revenue. The Tribunal proceeded to hear the appeal despite the assessee's absence.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an association of persons running an educational institute, filed its return of income. The CPC disallowed an expenditure claim of Rs. 12,06,193/- because the return was filed in ITR-7 instead of the prescribed ITR-5. The assessee's subsequent appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed as time-barred.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of expenditure due to filing in the wrong ITR form was justified, and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR

Hearing: 17.03.2026Pronounced: 11.05.2026

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 11.09.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

No one has put in appearance despite service of notice on behalf of the assessee. It seems that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting his

P a g e | 2 ITA No.1559/JPR/2025 SaraliaVaish Hindi Mahajani School appeal, I, therefore, proceed to adjudicate this appeal after hearing the Ld. DR and going through the records.

3.

The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-

1.That the Ld. AO erred in law and on facts in adding a sum of Rs. 1206193/- even though the expenses was incurred by the assessee and reported in return.

2.

That the learned AO has erred in law and facts in initiating and completing assessment u/s 143(3) because the order passed is both against facts and erroneous in law

3.

The appellant craves leave to add to or amend the aforesaid grounds before disposal of the appeal.

4.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an association of persons and has been engaged in social and welfare activities for the promotion of education of poor people and in running an educational institute. The assessee, during the year, filed its return of income which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). In the intimation/order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act, the claim of expenditure of the assessee of Rs.12,06,193/- was disallowed by the CPC observing that the assessee had not filed the return of income in the prescribed ITR Form- 5 and instead had filed its return in Form ITR-7.

5.

Being aggrieved by the said order of the CPC (AO), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee observing that the same was time barred. It was pleaded before the Ld. CIT(A) that since there was

P a g e | 3 ITA No.1559/JPR/2025 SaraliaVaish Hindi Mahajani School internal infighting between the members of the assessee AOP and that Sh. Vijander Nath Goel was appointed as Administrator of the assessee-society/AOP vide District Registrar Firms and Societies Ambala Order No.642 dated 14.06.2024, the appeal could not be filed within the limitation period because of the fact that the aforesaid intimation order passed u/s 143(1) did not come to the notice of the assessee-society, and further, the present Administrator,upon examining the records, found that the disallowance has been wrongly made by the CPC/Assessing Officer in respect of the expenditure claimed. The Ld. CIT(A), however, dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding the same as barred by limitation.

6.

After going through the records and after hearing the Ld. DR, I am of the view that merely because the ITR was filed in ITR- 7 instead of ITR- 5, that should not be a ground for disallowance of the expenditure claimed by the assessee society. It has been held time and again that the Income tax Authorities should charge legitimate taxes from its citizens. The Income Tax Authorities should not punish the assessees for their bona fide mistakes. In view of this, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for examination of the claim of expenditure and if the same is otherwise found admissible, he will allow the same irrespective of the fact that the return was filed in ITR- 7 or ITR -5.

P a g e | 4 ITA No.1559/JPR/2025 SaraliaVaish Hindi Mahajani School 7. With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 11/05/2026.

Sd/- (Sanjay Garg) Judicial Member Dated 11.05.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →