MAYA CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,PUNE vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Appellate Authority has passed the order u/s 250 without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard and thus violating the principle of "audi alteram partem." 20

That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Appellate Authority has erred in confirming the income assessed by the Ld. AO to the tune of Rs. 24,74,235/- as against the nil return of income without appreciating the correct facts of the case

That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Appellate Authority has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 18,98,761/- made by the Ld. AO merely on the basis that Form 10B was not filed within the prescribed time limit.

That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate the res judicata in this domain that exemption u/s 11 cannot be denied for mere non-filing of Form 10Bas filing of Form 10B is directory in nature and not mandatory in nature.

That, the Ld. Appellate Authority has mi irected himself in dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant without appreciating the judgments passed by various Honourable Courts and Tribunals highlighting that rejection of claim of exemption u/s 11 of the IT Act for mere non filing of Form 10B is not justifiable since filing of Form 10B is directory in nature and the same cannot be a reason to deny benefit.

That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Appellate Authority while passing the impugned order u/s 250, has erred in not appreciating the fact that the disallowance of Rs. 5,53,839/- is due to expenses inadvertently claimed u/s 10(23C) (via) instead of claiming exemption u/s 11 of the IT Act and the same was purely unintentional

That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Appellate Authority while passing the impugned order u/s 250 has failed to appreciate that the Form 10B has been filed prior to completion of the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the IT Act and the same was submitted during the course of assessment proceedings.

That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Appellate Authority has passed the impugned order u/s 250 in a mechanical way, without application of mind and without appreciating the overall facts and circumstances of the case.

That, the appellant may kindly be allowed to add, alter or modify any other modify any other points to the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing.

That, the aforesaid grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.

Any other order in the interest of justice may kindly be passed.”

The ld.AR for the Assessee filed a paper book. Ld.AR submitted that Assessing Officer has denied benefit of Section 11,

1 Ld.AR therefore submitted that Assessee is eligible for benefit of Section 11 of the Act.

The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of the Assessing Officer & ld.CIT(A).

We have heard both the parties and perused the record placed before us. In this case, Assessee had filed original return of income for A.Y.2016-17 on 17.10.2016 declaring total income at Rs.NIL. The Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer noted that in the Income Tax Return, Assessee had claimed exemption u/s.10(23C)(via) of the Act. The Assessing Officer noted in the order that Assessee is not existing solely for Educational Purpose and Assessee is not approved by prescribed authority

Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), assessee has filed appeal before this Tribunal.

We have perused the order dated 14.07.2022 of ld.CIT(Exemption) which is at page no.38-39 of the paper book. It is observed that ld.CIT(E) has condoned the delay in filing Form No.10B for A.Y.2016-17 subject to the conditions mentioned in the order. It is a fact that said order of the ld.CIT(E) was not available to the Assessing Officer when Assessing Officer passed the assessment order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we set-aside

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16 July, 2025. MS.ASTHA CHANDRA