B R HOSPITAL AND RESARCH INSTITUTE,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-EXEMPTION 1(3), DELHI

ITA 1336/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 July 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)13 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the filing of the audit report in Form 10B was directory in nature and not mandatory. It relied on various judicial precedents stating that substantial compliance is sufficient and the benefit of exemption should not be denied on technicalities, especially when the report was available.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a hospital and research institute, appealed against an order upholding an intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. The primary issue revolved around the disallowance of application of income and denial of exemption under section 11 due to alleged non-compliance with filing requirements for an audit report.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of exemption under Section 11 and application of income was valid when the audit report was filed with a delay, and if the intimation under Section 143(1) was passed without proper jurisdiction and application of mind.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 143(1),Section 10B,Section 37,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(8)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Basant Kumar, Adv. and Shri Anup Mukherjee, CA
For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24/06/2024Pronounced: 31/07/2024

PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM:

1.

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 23/01/2024 for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) erred in upholding the intimation passed by Assessing Officer (Dy. CIT, CPC) u/s 143(1) dated 21.05.2019, which is bad in law and void ab-intio as it was passed without proper assumption of Juri iction and application of mind.

2.

That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) erred in upholding the intimation passed by Assessing Officer (

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 11

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →