RAM PARSAD DAV PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY,MARKANDA vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD, AMBALA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on merits violated Sections 250 and 251 of the Income Tax Act and principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded to the AO for a fresh assessment.
What were the facts?
The assessee, an AOP running a school, filed a Nil return for AY 2016-17, claiming a donation as 'Corpus Fund' and net surplus as exempt. The AO recomputed taxable income by adding the donation, finding the assessee not registered under Section 12AA or approved under Section 10(23C)(vi).
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits, and if the AO's recomputation of income and denial of exemption were proper.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 250(6),Section 250(4),Section 250(5),Section 251(1)(a),Section 251(1)(b),Section 251(2),Section 10(23C)(vi),Section 143(3),Section 2(24)(iia),Section 11(1)(d),Section 271(1)(c),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)659 citing154 DTR 302 · 2017 · HC
- Kranthi Associates (P.) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan20 citing9 SCC 496 · 2010 · SC
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dt. 26/10/2022 pertaining to Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. At the outset the Registry has pointed out that the present appeal is barred by limitation by 01 day.
After considering the reasons for condonation explained by the assessee in the present appeal, we condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, an
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.
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 251(1)(a)
- Sanjay Kumar Jaisinghani, Raipur vs ITO, Ward-3(1), RaipurITA 699/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Yogesh Ramdas Ghode, Nashik vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), NashikITA 508/PUN/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Income Tax Office, Ludhiana vs Arjun Sood, LudhianaITA 301/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Income Tax Officer, Ayakar Bhawan vs Arjun Sood, Notrth Avenue OppositeITA 216/CHANDI/2025[2014]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026
- Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Chandigarh vs ITO Ward 5(5), ChandigarhITA 1037/CHANDI/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026