MERCY COLLEGE,PALAKKAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD -1, PALAKKAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 695/COCH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 November 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate all the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a de novo disposal of the appeal, instructing to provide the appellant with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

Mercy College, an educational institution, filed its return for AY 2011-12 declaring an income of Rs. 1,35,490/-. The AO completed the assessment under Section 143(3) at Rs. 26,48,470/-, making additions for excess income over expenditure, disallowed contingency expenses, and disallowed depreciation. The CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated all grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, necessitating a remand for de novo disposal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM

For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 03.11.2025Pronounced: 10.11.2025

Assessment Year: 2011-12 Merecy College .......... Appellant Mercy Coolege Junction, Palakkad 678006 [PAN: AAAAM1646D] vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Palakkad .......... Respondent Assessee by: ------- None ------- Revenue by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 03.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 10.11.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Gurugram [CIT(A)] dated 23.07.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a society running educational institution. The return of income for AY 2011- 12 was filed on 01.02.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 1,35,490/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Palakkad vide order dated 12.03.2014 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 26,48,470/-. While doing so, the AO Merecy College brought to tax excess income over expenditure of Rs. 19,35,801/-, disallowed provision for contingency expenditure of Rs. 1,10,000 and disallowed depreciation of Rs. 6,02,667/-.

3.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO.

4.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.

5.

At the outset, we find that the appellant had raised several grounds before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate all the grounds of appeal filed before him. Therefore, I remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo disposal of the appeal in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10th November, 2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →