SHREE JAIN SWETAMBER TERAPANTHI MANAV HITKARI SANGH,PALI vs. ITO, WARD, EXEMPTION, JODHPUR

ITA 826/JODH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 February 2026AY 2024-15Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the JCIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the appeal on technical grounds and confirming the entire receipts as income. It held that the assessee's claim for allowing corresponding expenditure against receipts was justified. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to treat the assessee as an AOP and allow legitimate expenses after due verification.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a foundation, filed its income tax return for AY 2014-15, marking 'NO' for exemptions under Section 11 and Section 10(23C)(III ad), but claimed audit under Section 10(23C)(vi). The CPC denied the exemption, assessing income at Rs. 32,61,973. The JCIT(A) upheld this, dismissing the appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the JCIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte and confirming the entire receipts as income without considering the assessee's claim for corresponding expenditure, especially when the assessee lacked registration under Section 12A or Section 10(23C).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 10(23C)(III ad),Section 10(23C)(vi),Section 250,Section 12A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain
For Respondent: Shri P.R. Mirdha, Addl. CIT
Hearing: 18.02.2026

DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, A.M.: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ADDL/JCIT(A) Prayagraj [hereinafter referred to as the JCIT (A)] dated 03.09.2024 with respect to Assessment Year 2014-15 challenging therein sustaining the assessed income of Rs. 32,61,973/- without considering merits of the case.

2

2.

Having heard both the sides and perusal of record, we find that the Central Processing Centre ( in short CPC) has denied the Assessee the benefit of exemption under Section 11 and Section 10(23C)(III ad) as the appellant has marked ‘NO’ for these options while filling in the return of income. However, the appellant assessee has claimed that it ha

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 →