MAHARAJA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

The Ld.CIT (A) has erred in sustaining the order passed by the Id. AO which is bad in law and bad on facts. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without discussing the issues on merits. The ex-parte order is bad in law and bad on facts.

The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in sustained the action of Id. AO in not granting deduction u/s. 10(23C) (iiiad) amounting to Rs. 10, 48,125/-claimed which is bad in law and bad on facts. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding such finding of the AO which is not based upon any valid basis or material. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of gross receipts of Rs. 24,90,595/- which is bad in law and bad on facts and has erred allowing deduction of application of against such receipts amounting to Rs. 30,81,799/-. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 13, 53,741/- on account of capital gains income addition made by the Id. AO. The addition so made is bad in law and bad on facts. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not granting the deduction of application made against this receipt. 5. the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 7, 93,713/- made by the Ld. AO on account of income from other sources. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in the action of Id. AO in taking the status of AOP and not granting the exemption claimed by the appellant. 7. the appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter, modify, deletes any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honours.”

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee society filed its return of income on 31.03.2018 u/s. 139(4) of the Act declaring total income at NIL in the status of trust/AOP. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices were issued as per the order of the AO. Throughout the hearing, the assessee never came forward to participate in the assessment proceedings. Ultimately, the case of the assessee was assessed ex-parte u/s. 144 of the Act at a figure of Rs. 56, 32,174/- (Including Rs. 13, 53,741/- under the head capital gains). The assessee being aggrieved with the same preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), who in turn confirmed the order of the AO by dismissing the appeal of the assessee, as there was non-compliance before the Ld. CIT (A) also. The assessee being further aggrieved preferred the present appeal before us. Before us also the matter was filed on 05.12.2024 and matter was fixed for hearing on 06.12.2024, i.e. after 2 months. Still, none appeared and no submissions were filed to substantiate the grounds taken before us. 3. In view of above facts, it can be reasonably observed that the assessee is simply dragging the proceedings before the various authorities including ITAT and there is no serious attempt to persuade the matter for its logical and legal conclusion. In the result, grounds taken by the assessee are dismissed. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed with an option to revive the matter by filing an M.A. after through preparation and submissions in their possession. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th day of March 2025. (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Jaipur, िदनांक/Dated: 24/03/2025