INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI vs. PVNSK SADHITHANAR E TRUST, PALLAVARAM

ITA 563/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 October 2026AY 2022-234 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the material, noted the assessee's contention before the Ld. CIT(A) regarding its Form 10AC registration. The Tribunal observed that no copy of registration approved by the competent authority under Section 12AB of the Act was presented before them. Consequently, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)'s order in remanding the matter to the AO for computation of the eligible amount for setting apart. The assessee was directed to furnish the copy of the registration before the AO, who would examine it and pass an order in accordance with law. The assessee was granted liberty to file supporting evidence. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was also allowed for statistical purposes as it supported the Ld. CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) for Assessment Year 2022-23. The assessee, PVNSK Sadhithanar E Trust, had claimed application of income towards revenue and capital expenditure. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the balance amount eligible for setting apart, not exceeding 15%, was not claimed in the ITR. Despite this, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the incorrect filing of information should not deny the benefit and directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to compute the eligible amount for setting apart. The Revenue's appeal challenged this decision. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the appeal was decided ex parte.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to compute the amount eligible for setting apart, despite the assessee's failure to claim it correctly in the ITR, thereby denying the benefit of setting apart to the appellant? Assessee's Contention (as per Ld. CIT(A)'s order): The assessee contended that it possessed a unique registration number AAATP6421EC20211 in Form 10AC, approved on 29.06.2023 for AY 2022-23 to AY 2026-27. The Ld. CIT(A) accepted this, holding that mere incorrect filing of information in the ITR should not deny the benefit of setting apart. Revenue's Contention: The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee lacked registration under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and only had registration under Section 10(23C)(vi). It was argued that no approval under Section 12AB of the Act was brought on record. The Revenue prayed for a remand to the Ld. CIT(A) to consider this aspect.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(23C)(vi),Section 12A,Section 12AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Hearing: 30.07.2026Pronounced: 08.10.2026

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No.563/Chny/2026
CO No.25/Chny/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), ADDL/JCIT (A) -2, Visakhapatnam for the assessment year 2022-23. 2. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor filed any adjournment application. Thus, the assessee is called absent and set ex parte. We pr

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 10(23C)(vi)

All 517 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(23C)(vi) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →