RAJAGIRI EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,RAJAGIRI,KALAMASSERY vs. ITO EXEMPTION CIRCLE, KOCHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The assessee's counsel argued that the assessment order was not received, and this contention was not controverted by the revenue. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the AO for fresh disposal.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a public trust, filed a return declaring Nil income. The case was reopened and additions were made, along with a penalty for concealing income. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's actions.
What were the issues?
Whether the penalty order should be set aside as the assessee did not receive the assessment order.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JM
O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 14.05.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a public trust rendering services in education and other allied charitable activities. The return of income for AY 2012-13 was filed declaring Nil income. Subsequently, the case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and a notice u/s. 148 of the Act Rajagiri Educational & Charitable Trust was issued on 29.03.2019. In response to the notice u/s. 148, the assessee filed return of income declaring Nil income and claimed expenditure of Rs. 28,55,89,443/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 23.12.2019 passed u/s. 147 of the Act at Nil income, wherein the AO made additions totaling to Rs. 2,06,62,994/-. However, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing income and imposed penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs. 63,84,850/-.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.
During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the appellant had not received the assessment order. Therefore, the penalty order should be set aside. The above contention of the appellant remained uncontroverted by the learned Sr. DR. In the circumstance, we remand the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh disposal in accordance with law after furnishing a copy of the assessment order to the assessee.
Order pronounced in the open court on 14th August, 2025.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026