ST.FRANCIS XAVIERS CHURCH,KANDAKADAVU vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), ERNAKULAM

The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal: - “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred not only in law, but also in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in disallowing the claim of the appellant without affording an opportunity for personnel hearing before dismissing the appeal.

3. The authorities below erred in law by disallowing the claim of the appellant u/s. 11(2) alleging violation of Sec. 11(5) without pointing out any mistake apparent from record. In doing so, they went beyond the powers granted to him u/s. 143(1).

The learned Commissioner of Income tax Appeals erred in law by not considering the prayer of the appellant on merits but dismissed the appeal on a flimsy ground that the appellant had not responded for the notices u/s.250 of the Act which is not mandatory as per the notes mentioned in notices but also is in violation of the same.

The authorities below went wrong in not considering the application of Income u/s.11(2) which is clearly evident from the Income Tax returns and Audit report along with financials filed under section 139(4A) of the Act.

Such other grounds as may be raised at the time of hearing the appeal.”

It emerges with the able assistance coming from the Revenue’s side that the CITA’s exparte lower appellate discussion, upholding the assessment findings, has neither framed any points of determination nor there is a detailed discussion thereupon, as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act. We therefore restore the instant appeal back to the CITA for his afresh appropriate adjudication as per law within three effective opportunities, at assessee’s risk and responsibility.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.