AASTHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WAR,, GHAZIABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)-NFAC's order lacked detailed adjudication as mandated by Section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A)-NFAC for fresh and proper adjudication, with the condition that the taxpayer must present all relevant facts within three effective opportunities.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against the disallowance of Section 11(1A) exemption on capital gains amounting to Rs. 1,81,71,431/-, which was upheld by the lower authorities. The original assessment was framed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance of Section 11(1A) exemption on capital gains was legally sound, and whether the appellate authority had fulfilled its obligation under Section 250(6) by providing a detailed adjudication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “NFAC”] Delhi’s DIN and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1061751710(1), dated 29.02.2024, involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Case called twice. None appeared at the behest of the assessee. We accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
Learned CIT(DR) vehemently argued during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities herein have rightly disallowed the assesee’s section 11(1A) exemption claim in the course of assessment framed on 13.12.2017 as upheld in the lower appellate proceedings. He takes us to pages 4 to 5 of the lower appellate findings running from paras 6 to 7 confirming the impugned addition of Rs.1,81,71,431/- representing capital gains.
We, however, note that the CIT(A)-NFAC’s impugned lower appellate discussion has neither framed any point of discussion nor it gives detailed adjudication thereupon as contemplated under section 250(6) of the Act. We thus deem it as a fit case to be restored back to the CIT(A)-NFAC for its fresh and appropriate adjudication as per law subject to a rider that tax payer shall plead and prove all the relevant facts at its own risk and responsibility within three effective opportunities in consequential proceedings. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th November, 2024
More judgments on Section 11(1A)
- Shree Harikrushna Velfare Trust, Bhachau vs The ITO Exemption Ward 1, Rjakot, RajkotITA 677/RJT/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Lrg Naidu Educational and Charitable Trust… vs CIT Exemptions, ChennaiITA 2768/CHNY/2026[-]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026
- Valliappa Foundation, Salem vs CIT(E), ChennaiITA 2260/CHNY/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2026-27
- Valliappa Foundation, Salem vs CIT(E), ChennaiITA 2259/CHNY/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2026-27
- The Somaiya Trust, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 2(4)…ITA 4057/MUM/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Sept 2026AY 2023-24
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026