KHEMANI CHARITABLE TRUST,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD 1(4),EXEMPTION,, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2099/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 January 2026AY 2024-25Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the filing of the auditor's report along with the return of income is a procedural provision. The denial of exemption under Section 11 by the CPC was unsustainable as it was not an adjustment for the purpose of intimation under Section 143(1).

What were the facts?

The assessee filed its return of income and Form 10BB on 15/11/2024. The CPC denied the deduction under Section 11 of the Act, citing that Form 10B was not filed one month before the due date of filing the return. The assessee contended that the filing of Form 10B was a procedural requirement.

What were the issues?

Whether the denial of exemption under Section 11 by the CPC in an intimation under Section 143(1) is sustainable when Form 10B was filed belatedly with the return of income.

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 KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

Hearing: 13/01/2026Pronounced: 13/01/2026

O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 18.07.2025, passed by the ld.Addl/JCIT(A), Madurai, for the assessment year 2024-2025.

2.

It was submitted by the Ld.AR that for the impugned assessment year the assessee had filed its return of income on 15/11/2024. It was submission that the form 10BB was also filed along with return of income on 15/11/2024. It was the submission that as the form 10B was filed along with return and not one month before the due date of filing of the return, the CPC had issued intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act denying the assessee the benefit of deduction u/s.11 of the Act as claimed. It was the submission that the filing of the form 10B was procedural requirement and would not lead to denial of the exemption u/s.11 of the Act in the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act.

3.

In reply, the Ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the order of the CPC and Ld. JCIT(A).

1.

I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that the assessee has filed the requisite from though belatedly. Admittedly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional high Court of Calcutta in the case of M/s Indian Sugar Mills Association in ITAT/270/2023 IA No:GA/1/2023, GA/2/2023, dated 10/01/2024, has categorically brought out that the filing of the auditor’s report along with the return of income has been treated as procedural provision and therefore directory in nature. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has followed the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Oil And Allied Industries, reported in 1993 ITR (201) 325. In any case even, assuming that an intimation is to be issued u/s.143(1) of the Act, the denial of an exemption u/s.11 of the Act if it is done, the income of the assessee should be assessed as business income and the income there on to be computed. This has not been done by the CPC. The CPC has blindly denied the assessee the various claim u/s.11 of the Act. This is not an adjustment for the purpose of intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act. This being so, the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act found to be unsustainable and the same is hereby quashed.

More judgments on Section 11

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →