AROGYAVARAM EYE HOSPITAL AND CONTACT LENS CLINIC SOCIETY,SRIKAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION WARD), VISAKHAPATNAM
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not considering the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, especially after the revised return was processed and exemption was granted. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a charitable hospital, initially filed its return claiming exemption under Section 11 but omitted to mention audit details. A revised return was filed with the correct details, and the exemption was allowed by the CPC. However, the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance without considering the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal without considering the assessee's request to withdraw it, despite the revised return being processed favorably.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE
We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record as well as the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. Admittedly, the assessee has wrongly filed the original return of income without disclosing the audit details in ITR-7, dated 30/12/2020. However, the assessee has filed a revised return of income on 28/03/2022 disclosing the audit details. It was also demonstrated by the Ld. AR that the Audit Report in Form-10B has been duly filed on 30/12/2020. The CPC while processing the revised return of income has considered the filing of Audit Report in Form-10B and has granted refund of Rs. 1,62,750/- by allowing the exemption U/s. 11 of the Act. Giving these facts and circumstances, the assessee has sent a mail on January, 2024 to the Ld. CIT(A) citing the withdrawal of the appeal filed before him. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the assessee’srequest of withdrawal of appeal and has proceeded to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte vide order dated 31/01/2024. Under these circumstances, we find it deem fit to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) directing him to consider the plea of the assessee to withdraw the appeal and 5 pass appropriate order, as the revised return of income has already been considered and processed by the CPC. We therefore allow the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above. Pronounced in the open Court on 24th July, 2024.
More judgments on Section 11
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Mata Lachmi Rotary Charitable Society… vs Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward - 1…ITA 310/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Shiva Shiksha Samiti, Deendayal Puram, Up… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Agra…ITA 415/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Sweekar, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 1, Exemp, NagpurITA 531/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Sweekar, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 1, Exemp, NagpurITA 530/NAG/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026