MADRASA ALFALAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX EXEMPTION WARD 2(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1006/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 June 2025AY 2021-22Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte, affirming the Ld. Commissioner's order. It was held that the provisional registration was not applicable for the relevant assessment year, and the assessee failed to produce any material to challenge this finding. The dismissal was, however, with liberty for the assessee to seek recalling of the order upon substantiating a plausible ground for non-appearance.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Madrasa Al Falah, claimed exemption under Section 11 for A.Y. 2021-22, which was denied under Section 143(1) leading to an addition of Rs. 2,78,540/-. A rectification application under Section 154 was also rejected. The Ld. Commissioner found that the provisional registration (dated 04.11.2023) was applicable for A.Y. 2024-25 to 2026-27, not the relevant A.Y. 2021-22, and the audit report in Form 10B under Section 12A(b) was not submitted.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2021-22, considering that its provisional registration was for a later period and the audit report in Form 10B was not submitted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 12,Section 12A(b),Section 143(1),Section 143(1)(a)(ii),Section 154,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY

For Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. D.R
Hearing: 12.06.2025Pronounced: 12.06.2025

O R D E R

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

1.

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 08.02.2024, impugned herein, passed by the ADDL/JCIT (in short Ld. Addl/Joint Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2021-22.

2.

Despite of sending notices to the Assessee for the dates of hearing on 08.04.2025 and 10.06.2025 as well as informing telephonically for the previous dates of hearing as well as today’s hearing, the Assessee neither appeared nor filed any adjournment application and therefore this Court is constrained to decide this appeal as ex-parte.

/2025 M/s. Madrasa Alfalah 3. Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that the Assessee has claimed the exemption u/s. 11 of the Act, by filing its return of income for the assessment year under consideration which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act by the CPC/AO and vide intimation dated 31.12.2021 the exemption claimed by the Assessee was denied and, consequently an addition of Rs. 2,78,540/- has been made by treating the entire income of the Assessee as taxable. The Assessee thereafter filed a rectification application u/s. 154 of the Act, however of no avail, as the CPC vide order dated 23.08.2022 declined to entertain the claim of the Assessee for rectification and consequently, reiterated the disallowance made vide intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act.

4.

The Assessee, being aggrieved challenged the said intimation/order for not allowing the claim of the Assessee being exempt before the Ld. Commissioner, who in the impugned order observed “that new registration application was submitted by the Assessee beyond time and consequential order for provisional registration dated 04.11.2023 is applicable for A.Y. 2024-25 to A.Y. 2026-27. The gross total receipt of the appellant is more than taxable limit before any exemption u/s. 11 and 12. However, audit report in form 10B as per section 12A(b) is not submitted. In the intimation, the amount of adjustment u/s. 143(1)(a)(ii) is mentioned at Rs. 5,57,080/- which is twice the amount of total receipt of appellant. However, in the computation, only amount of Rs. 2,78,540/- is taken into consideration for tax purpose. Therefore, no adverse effect on this account is affected on appellant and a contention on this regard is rejected” and ultimately dismissed the appeal of assessee affirming the addition.

5.

This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, the Assessee on the basis of provisional registration dated 04.12.2023 has lodged its /2025 M/s. Madrasa Alfalah claim, whereas it is a fact that a particular provisional registration is applicable for the A.Y. 2024-25 and A.Y. 2026-27 as observed by the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order. Even otherwise there is no material available on record and also not produced by the Assessee, to controvert the said finding of the Ld. Commissioner in coming to the conclusion, in rejecting the claim of the Assessee by dismissing the appeal. Thus, the order in appeal, is sustained and the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed, however, with liberty to Assessee to seek recalling of this order, on substantiating the plausible ground of non-appearance.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12.06.2025.

More judgments on Section 11

All 7,190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →