AKSHAT EDUCATION AND CHARTABLE TRUST,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD EXEMPTION, VADODARA

The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of CPC despite there being a clear mistake apparent from record in the order passed under section 154 of the Income Tax Act. Asst. Year : 2022-23 - 2– 2. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of CPC in denying exemption u/s 10(23C)(via) of 1,13,04,684/- even though the appellant holds a valid and subsisting approval in Form 10AC. 3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that once approval is validly granted under the Statute, denial of exemption u/s 10(23C)(via) on purely technical ground is against the settled principles of law and defeats the object of the statute. 4. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the CPC had erred in assessing the income at gross receipts of ₹1,13,04,684/-, without allowing legitimate revenue expenses, contrary to the settled principle that only net income is taxable. 5. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that even if exemption under Section 10(23C)(via) were to be rejected for any reason, the appellant was still entitled to deduction of revenue expenses incurred for running its educational activities. 6. Without prejudice and in alternate, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in appreciating the case on hand is not a case of non- filing of audit report but a case of filing audit report in a different Form. The audit report in Form no. 108 submitted online, though technically incorrect, contained all necessary disclosures required for Form 10BB and therefore omission thereof, caused no prejudice to revenue since the purpose of filing Form 10BB stood effectively served. 7. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or modify any of the above grounds at the time of hearing. The facts of the case are that assessee, Akshat Education and 3. Charitable Trust, is a registered charitable trust engaged in educational activities and had duly filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2022–23 on 31.10.2022 (within the extended due date of 07.11.2022), declaring total income at Rs.Nil. The return was processed under section 143(1) by the CPC, Bengaluru, on 31.03.2023, wherein the income was assessed at Rs.1,13,04,684/-, representing the gross receipts of the appellant. Asst. Year : 2022-23 - 3– 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the CPC disallowed exemption claimed under section 10(23C)(via) due to a mismatch in the registration particulars in the ITR. The assessee thereafter corrected the relevant particulars on the Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) portal and sought reprocessing of the return. The request was treated as a rectification application under section 154 of the Act. The CPC, however, rejected the rectification application on 01.12.2023, reiterating the same reasons as in the initial processing order, without appreciating that the error was clerical and apparent from record and, therefore, rectifiable under section 154. 5. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, due to an inadvertent drafting error, the grounds raised pertained to the filing of Form 10B instead of Form 10BB—an issue that was never raised before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A), vide order dated 30.06.2025, proceeded to dispose of the appeal on the incorrect premise of Form 10B/10BB filing and dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the actual issue relating to the mismatch in registration particulars.