KALAVIKAS KENDRA,CUTTACK vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, CUTTACK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 266/CTK/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 August 2025AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the intimation issued by CPC under Section 143(1) of the Act was not permissible as it taxed entire receipts as total income without assessing business income and without considering the necessary adjustments prescribed under the Act.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against orders for assessment years 2016-2017 & 2020-2021. The assessee's return of income faced a delay in filing Form 10B, leading CPC to issue an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act taxing entire receipts as income.

What were the issues?

Whether the intimation issued by CPC under Section 143(1) of the Act, taxing entire receipts as income due to delay in filing Form 10B, is permissible?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 11,Section 13,Section 12A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

Hearing: 11/08/2025Pronounced: 11/08/2025

आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders passed by ld. Addl/JCIT(A), Prayagraj, both dated 31.03.2025, for the assessment years 2016-2017 & 2020-2021. 2. It was the submission of the ld. AR that when filing the return of income there was a delay in filing form 10B. It was the submission that consequently the CPC had issued an intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act bringing to tax the entire receipts as income of the assessee. It was the submission of the ld. AR that this is not permissible under an intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act and if at all the CPC to make adjustments it was the denial of the benefit u/s.11 & 13 of the Act, that could have been done.

3.

In reply, ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee has an option to file application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B. It was the submission that liberty may be granted to the assessee to file application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B of the Act.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions. When the assessee has not complied with the requirement of the Act being not filed Form 10B of the Act if an intimation u/s.143(1) is to be issued, then obviously the income of the assessee would be treated as business income and his business income is liable to be assessed. Non-filing of Form 10B would lead to non- granting of the exemption as required u/s.11 & 13 r.w.s.12A of the Act. In both the appeals of the assessee, it is noticed that the CPC has not assessed assessee’s business income but has brought to tax the entire receipts as the total income of the assessee. This is not permissible in an intimation issued u/s.143(1) of the Act. This being so, the intimation issued u/s.143(1) of the Act is bad in law and does not fall within the adjustments as prescribed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Consequently, the intimation issued u/s.143(1) for both the assessment years under consideration is hereby quashed.

5.

In the result, both appeals of the assessed are allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 11/08/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (राजेश कुमार) (जाजज माथन) (RAJESH KUMAR) (GEORGE MATHAN) लेखा सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ददनाांक Dated 11/08/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.

More judgments on Section 11

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →