ST. ANTONYS FRIARY,KOLLAM vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, KOLLAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 293/COCH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2023-24Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by confirming the denial on a different ground than the CPC's initial reason. Noting the CBDT's condonation of delay for Form 10BB filing, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s reasoning invalid and remanded the matter for de novo disposal by the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The appellant, a charitable trust, claimed Section 11 exemption but was denied by CPC under Section 143(1) for failing to fill Part B3 of Schedule Part BTI. The CIT(A) confirmed this denial, citing the appellant's filing of Form 10B instead of Form 10BB.

What were the issues?

Whether the denial of Section 11 exemption by the CPC and CIT(A) was justified, considering the specific reasons cited and the CBDT's condonation of delay for filing Form 10BB.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Hearing: 05.05.2025

Asst.Year 2023-2024 St.Antony’s Friary The Income Tax Officer Tillery v. Exemption Ward Kollam – 691 001. Kollam. PAN : AAATS6510M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Ivan Joseph, CA Respondent by : Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR Date of Date of Hearing : 05.05.2025 Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Addl. /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [hereinafter “the CIT(A)”] dated 19.02.2025 for the assessment year 2023-2024.

2.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a charitable trust. The return of income for the assessment year 2023-2024 was filed on 22.11.2023, after claiming exemption u/s.11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”). The appellant also filed Form 10B along with the return of income. The said return of income was processed by the CPC u/s.143(1) of the Act, vide intimation dated 25.11.2024, denying exemption u/s.11 of the Act on the ground that the appellant had failed to fill up Part B3 of Schedule Part BTI.

. St.Antonys Friary. 3. Being aggrieved by the above intimation, the appellant preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the CPC, by holding that the appellant had filed the audit report in Form 10B instead of Form 10BB.

4.

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

5. The learned Senior DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

6.

I heard the learned Senior DR and perused the material available on record. The only issue that arises for my determination is whether the CPC was justified in making adjustment to the returned income by denying exemption u/s.11 of the Act, for the reason that the appellant had failed to fill up Part B3 of Schedule Part BTI. However, the on appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) confirmed the adjustment by holding that the appellant had filed Form 10B instead of Form 10BB. In my considered view, the CIT(A) is not empowered to confirm the addition for a different reason. The CBDT vide order dated 7th October, 2021, had condoned the delay in filing Form 10BB up to the period of 31st March, 2024. Therefore, the reasoning of the CIT(A) is not valid in law, and also the CIT(A) had failed to examine the reasons assigned by the CPC while processing the return of income. Therefore, the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for denovo disposal of the appeal, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

Order pronounced on this 14th day of May, 2025.

Sd/- (Inturi Rama Rao) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin; Dated : 14th May, 2025. Devadas G* Copy to :

1. 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT, Cochin. 4. The DR, ITAT, Cochin.

5. Guard File. Asst.Registrar/ITAT, Cochin Initial Date 1. Draft dictated on 06.05.2025 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the JM/AM second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second JM/AM Member.

5.

Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading the order on website 8. If not uploaded, furnish the reason 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the AR 10. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk.

11.

Date of dispatch of Order.

12.

Draft dictation sheets are attached Sr.PS

More judgments on Section 11

All 7,190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →