ITAT Kolkata Judgments — December 2025

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. It remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to provide the assessee a fair opportunity to present all relevant evidence, explanations, and documents, including the option to submit new evidence under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules.

The Assessing Officer made additions on account of suppression of asset value and unverified creditors. The CIT(A) upheld these additions. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that it has the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal if sufficient cause is shown by the assessee, as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal acknowledged that while statutory timelines are important, the overarching principle is to ensure that genuine grievances are heard. In this specific case, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient cause for the delay. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned. The Tribunal directed that the appeal be admitted for adjudication on its merits. The issue of the substantive appeal was not decided in this order, as it focused solely on the condonation of delay.

The Tribunal found that the reassessment notice under Section 148, though dated 31.03.2021, was actually issued/uploaded on 01.04.2021. This meant it fell under the new reassessment regime, effective from 01.04.2021, which mandated compliance with Section 148A. Citing Calcutta High Court judgments, the Tribunal held that the notice and subsequent proceedings were invalid due to non-compliance with statutory formalities.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer, directing fresh adjudication after giving the assessee sufficient opportunity for hearing and examination of documents.

The Tribunal observed that the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT Circular. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as having a low tax effect.

The Tribunal noted that as per the Scheme, appeals are deemed withdrawn upon issuance of the certificate and the taxpayer is required to furnish proof of withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn and dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For ITA Nos. 2287 & 2288/Kol/2025, the issues were restored to the file of the PCIT for readjudication, subject to a cost of Rs. 1,00,000 per assessment year. For ITA Nos. 1531 & 1532/Kol/2025, the appeals were allowed, quashing the assessment orders.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when there are divergent views on an issue, even if the quantum addition is confirmed. Since there was a difference of opinion regarding the exemption under Section 10(38), the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee's error was a technical mistake in citing the wrong clause of Section 80G in the application form. The Tribunal ruled that such an inadvertent technical mistake should not be the basis for denying registration and directed the CIT(E) to correct the already filed application and process it for registration.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, which ruled that the withdrawal of approval to the donee institution with retrospective effect does not affect the assessee's right to claim deduction if the donation was genuine and all conditions were fulfilled at the time of payment. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant the benefit of deduction.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was invalid as it was issued in a mechanical manner, without striking off the irrelevant limbs or specifying whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on jurisdictional High Court decisions, the Tribunal concluded that such a vague notice vitiates the entire penalty proceedings. Consequently, the penalty order was quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, emphasizing that technicalities should not override substantial justice, especially when a significant Supreme Court decision on the core issue was pending. The appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For ITA Nos. 2287 & 2288/Kol/2025, the issues were restored to the file of the PCIT for readjudication, subject to a cost of Rs. 1,00,000 per assessment year. For ITA Nos. 1531 & 1532/Kol/2025, the appeals were allowed, quashing the assessment orders.

The Tribunal held that for the issue concerning additions under Section 69A based on seized materials (rough jottings), the CIT(A) correctly estimated the profit element by applying the assessee's declared GP rate of 7.84% to the undisclosed cash transactions. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s approach of treating these as business transactions and taxing the profit element was reasonable, thus sustaining an addition of ₹22,54,000/- and deleting the balance. For the issue concerning unsecured loans and interest thereon for Balmukund Lease Fin Private Limited, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It relied on its prior decision in ITA No. 1699/Kol/2025 for AY 2015-16, which held that Section 68 is not applicable when unsecured loans have been repaid. Consequently, the deletion of the addition of ₹4,51,00,000/- and the consequential deletion of interest of ₹19,25,497/- by the CIT(A) were upheld. The Tribunal concluded by allowing the assessees' appeals and dismissing the Revenue's appeals.

The Tribunal found that there were sufficient causes for the delay before the CIT(A) and that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal found that there were sufficient causes for the delay before the CIT(A) and that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal admitted the Revenue's appeal after condoning a delay. The core issue revolves around whether the CIT(A) correctly deleted additions related to share capital and commission, which the Revenue argues were not properly substantiated by the assessee.

The Tribunal found that there were sufficient causes for the delay before the CIT(A) and that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly estimated the profit on the unaccounted cash transactions based on the assessee's declared GP rate, thereby partly allowing the assessee's appeal and partly confirming the addition.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after granting the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the revenue authorities. It directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issues and pass a fresh order after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard and to provide necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly applied the GP rate to estimate profit on suppressed sales/cash transactions. For Balmukund Sponge and Iron Pvt. Ltd. (AY 2015-16), the CIT(A)'s sustaining of ₹22,54,000/- by applying a GP rate of 7.84% on cash transactions of ₹2,87,50,000/- was upheld. For Balmukund Cement & Roofings Pvt. Ltd. (AY 2023-24), the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the CIT(A)'s restriction of addition based on WhatsApp chats, following its decision in a related appeal. Similarly, the assessee's appeals regarding additions based on WhatsApp chats were allowed, following the earlier decision. For Balmukund Cement & Roofings Pvt. Ltd. (AY 2023-24), concerning internal transfers recorded in books, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition, finding them to be intercompany transactions duly recorded. For Balmukund Lease Fin Pvt. Ltd. (AY 2020-21), the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the deletion of additions under Section 68 for unsecured loans repaid before the search, citing its prior decision that Section 68 is not applicable in such cases. The deletion of consequential interest was also upheld. In essence, the Tribunal allowed the assessees' appeals and dismissed the Revenue's appeals.

The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the Ld. CIT(A) had correctly followed judicial precedents establishing that CBDT instructions are binding on the department. It was reiterated that if a notice under Section 143(2) is not issued in compliance with these instructions, both the notice and the subsequent assessment framed are without valid jurisdiction and must be quashed. The Tribunal found no error in the Ld. CIT(A)'s order.

On the issue of cash transactions treated as undisclosed sales (Issue 1), the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the seized document BSIPL/01 stated the aggregate of entries as 'investments'. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) treated these cash transactions as suppressed sales and applied a GP rate. However, the Tribunal observed that the seized document itself indicated 'investments'. The Tribunal's reasoning, though partially stated in the provided text, suggests a departure from the CIT(A)'s approach of estimating income on suppressed sales. The Tribunal's decision in related appeals (ITA 1396/KOL/2025) was referenced, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal on this point. For the issue of unexplained cash credits and interest on bogus loans (Issue 2), the Tribunal noted that the unsecured loans were repaid by the assessee even before the date of the search. Citing its own decision in ITA No. 1699/Kol/2025, AY 2015-16, where it dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the ground that Section 68 is not applicable when unsecured loans have been repaid, the Tribunal held that this decision would apply mutatis mutandis. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The operative direction for the first issue was a dismissal of the Revenue's appeal, implying the CIT(A)'s order was not entirely overturned in favour of the Revenue. For the second issue, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal decided that for AY 2015-16, the CIT(A) correctly estimated the profit element on the undisclosed cash transactions at 7.84%, upholding the addition of ₹22,54,000/- and deleting the balance. The reasoning was that while the AO treated the entire amount as unexplained money, the CIT(A) rightly considered it as business transactions and applied the assessee's declared GP rate. For AY 2020-21, the Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Act is not applicable when unsecured loans have been repaid before the date of search. Therefore, the deletion of additions of ₹4,51,00,000/- under Section 68 and the consequential deletion of interest of ₹19,25,497/- by the CIT(A) were upheld. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals on these grounds. The operative direction was to dismiss the Revenue's appeals and allow the assessee's appeals where applicable.

The Tribunal held that the cash entries, which the AO treated as unexplained money under Section 69A, should be considered as business transactions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s approach of estimating the profit element on these transactions. For Balmukund Sponge and Iron Private Limited, the Tribunal sustained the addition of ₹22,54,000/- (7.84% of ₹2,87,50,000/-) as the profit element, aligning with the CIT(A)'s order. For other related entities concerning similar issues based on WhatsApp chats and ledger accounts, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals, deleting additions made by the AO and partly sustained by the CIT(A), by treating them as internal transfers or business transactions that were duly recorded in books of account. Regarding the unsecured loans for Balmukund Lease Fin Private Limited, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, following its earlier decision that Section 68 is not applicable when unsecured loans have been repaid before the search, thereby upholding the deletion of additions and consequential interest disallowance.

On the first issue concerning Balmukund Sponge and Iron Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2015-16, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the profit element on the unaccounted cash transactions at 7.84%, which amounted to ₹22,54,000/-. The reasoning was that the CIT(A) correctly treated the cash entries as business transactions and applied the assessee's declared Gross Profit (GP) rate of 7.84% to estimate the profit embedded in these undisclosed transactions. The Tribunal thus sustained the addition of ₹22,54,000/- and deleted the balance of ₹2,64,96,000/-. On the second issue concerning Balmukund Lease Fin Private Limited for AY 2020-21, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The reasoning was that the issue of unsecured loans being repaid before the date of search was similar to a previously decided case (ITA No. 1699/Kol/2025, AY 2015-16) where it was held that Section 68 of the Act is not applicable when unsecured loans have been repaid. Consequently, the deletion of additions of ₹4,51,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit and the consequential deletion of interest of ₹19,25,497/- by the CIT(A) were upheld. The operative direction was the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that for Balmukund Sponge and Iron Private Limited (AY 2015-16), the addition of ₹2,87,50,000/- should be treated as business transactions. Following the CIT(A)'s approach, the profit element embedded in these undisclosed cash transactions was estimated at 7.84%, which amounts to ₹22,54,000/-. Therefore, the addition of ₹22,54,000/- was upheld, and the remaining amount of ₹2,64,96,000/- was deleted. The ratio is that when cash transactions are found to be related to business but are unexplained, the profit element should be estimated based on the assessee's declared GP rate. For Balmukund Lease Fin Private Limited (AY 2020-21), the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It relied on its earlier decision in ITA No. 1699/Kol/2025 for AY 2015-16, which held that Section 68 of the Act is not applicable to cases where unsecured loans have been repaid. Since the unsecured loans in this case were repaid even before the search, the deletion of additions under Section 68 and the consequential deletion of interest were upheld. The ratio is that Section 68 is inapplicable to repaid loans.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) had correctly analyzed the facts and contentions and dismissed the assessee's appeal. However, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer to obtain the DVO's report and pass an appropriate order after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the 4-day delay in filing the Revenue's appeal in ITA No. 1759/KOL/2025, noting the assessee did not oppose it and the reason cited was administrative approval. Regarding the cash transactions under Section 69A for AY 2015-16, the Tribunal, by referring to its decision in a sister concern's case (ITA No. 1396/KOL/2025 for AY 2017-18), allowed the assessee's appeal on this issue, thereby dismissing the Revenue's appeal concerning the partial sustaining of additions by the CIT(A). For other issues involving additions based on WhatsApp chats and ledger accounts, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals, either by following its prior decision in ITA No. 1396/KOL/2025 or by finding that the transactions were intercompany transfers duly recorded in the books of account. In the case of Balmukund Lease Fin Private Limited (AY 2020-21), the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the deletion of additions under Section 68 for unsecured loans and consequential interest disallowance, holding that Section 68 is not applicable when loans have been repaid before the search. The Tribunal expressly left no issue undecided.

On the first issue concerning Balmukund Sponge and Iron Private Limited for AY 2015-16, the Tribunal held that the profit element embedded in the undisclosed cash transactions of ₹2,87,50,000/- should be estimated at the Gross Profit (GP) rate declared by the assessee, which was 7.84%. This resulted in sustaining an addition of ₹22,54,000/- and deleting the balance of ₹2,64,96,000/-. The reasoning was that the CIT(A) correctly applied the GP rate to the unaccounted cash transactions, treating them as undeclared sales. On the second issue concerning Balmukund Lease Fin Private Limited for AY 2020-21, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It held that Section 68 of the Act is not applicable to a case where unsecured loans have been repaid, even if repaid before the search. This decision was based on a prior ruling in a similar case. Therefore, the deletion of the addition of ₹4,51,00,000/- and the consequential deletion of interest were upheld.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly applied the GP rate to estimate profit on suppressed sales/cash transactions. For Balmukund Sponge and Iron Pvt. Ltd. (AY 2015-16), the CIT(A)'s sustaining of ₹22,54,000/- by applying a GP rate of 7.84% on cash transactions of ₹2,87,50,000/- was upheld. For Balmukund Cement & Roofings Pvt. Ltd. (AY 2023-24), the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the CIT(A)'s restriction of addition based on WhatsApp chats, following its decision in a related appeal. Similarly, the assessee's appeals regarding additions based on WhatsApp chats were allowed, following the earlier decision. For Balmukund Cement & Roofings Pvt. Ltd. (AY 2023-24), concerning internal transfers recorded in books, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition, finding them to be intercompany transactions duly recorded. For Balmukund Lease Fin Pvt. Ltd. (AY 2020-21), the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the deletion of additions under Section 68 for unsecured loans repaid before the search, citing its prior decision that Section 68 is not applicable in such cases. The deletion of consequential interest was also upheld. In essence, the Tribunal allowed the assessees' appeals and dismissed the Revenue's appeals.

The Tribunal ruled that the approval granted by the PCIT instead of the PCCIT for the Section 148 notice, issued beyond three years for a sum exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs, was invalid. Consequently, the Section 148 notice and the assessment order passed thereof were quashed.

The ITAT condoned the 161-day delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's old age and reliance on her son/tax consultant. To uphold the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision on merits, while also cautioning the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was levied on an estimated addition and that there was no evidence of misreporting or underreporting of income. Since the valuation report was not available, the penalty levied under Section 270A was deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the JCIT(A)'s direction was to merely verify if the excess TDS credit shown in Form 26AS corresponded to the income declared by the assessee. If the income was offered, the assessee was entitled to the TDS benefit. As the revenue could not demonstrate any specific error in this approach, the JCIT(A)'s order was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly estimated the profit on the unaccounted cash transactions based on the assessee's declared GP rate, thereby partly allowing the assessee's appeal and partly confirming the addition.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly estimated the profit on the unaccounted cash transactions based on the assessee's declared GP rate, thereby partly allowing the assessee's appeal and partly confirming the addition.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly estimated the profit on the unaccounted cash transactions based on the assessee's declared GP rate, thereby partly allowing the assessee's appeal and partly confirming the addition.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly applied the GP rate to estimate profit on suppressed sales/cash transactions. For Balmukund Sponge and Iron Pvt. Ltd. (AY 2015-16), the CIT(A)'s sustaining of ₹22,54,000/- by applying a GP rate of 7.84% on cash transactions of ₹2,87,50,000/- was upheld. For Balmukund Cement & Roofings Pvt. Ltd. (AY 2023-24), the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the CIT(A)'s restriction of addition based on WhatsApp chats, following its decision in a related appeal. Similarly, the assessee's appeals regarding additions based on WhatsApp chats were allowed, following the earlier decision. For Balmukund Cement & Roofings Pvt. Ltd. (AY 2023-24), concerning internal transfers recorded in books, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition, finding them to be intercompany transactions duly recorded. For Balmukund Lease Fin Pvt. Ltd. (AY 2020-21), the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the deletion of additions under Section 68 for unsecured loans repaid before the search, citing its prior decision that Section 68 is not applicable in such cases. The deletion of consequential interest was also upheld. In essence, the Tribunal allowed the assessees' appeals and dismissed the Revenue's appeals.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly applied the GP rate to estimate profit on suppressed sales/cash transactions. For Balmukund Sponge and Iron Pvt. Ltd. (AY 2015-16), the CIT(A)'s sustaining of ₹22,54,000/- by applying a GP rate of 7.84% on cash transactions of ₹2,87,50,000/- was upheld. For Balmukund Cement & Roofings Pvt. Ltd. (AY 2023-24), the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the CIT(A)'s restriction of addition based on WhatsApp chats, following its decision in a related appeal. Similarly, the assessee's appeals regarding additions based on WhatsApp chats were allowed, following the earlier decision. For Balmukund Cement & Roofings Pvt. Ltd. (AY 2023-24), concerning internal transfers recorded in books, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition, finding them to be intercompany transactions duly recorded. For Balmukund Lease Fin Pvt. Ltd. (AY 2020-21), the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the deletion of additions under Section 68 for unsecured loans repaid before the search, citing its prior decision that Section 68 is not applicable in such cases. The deletion of consequential interest was also upheld. In essence, the Tribunal allowed the assessees' appeals and dismissed the Revenue's appeals.

The Tribunal, relying on precedent, ruled that since the individual expenditures for which employees were reimbursed were each below ₹20,000, the provisions of Section 40A(3) were not applicable. Consequently, the disallowance related to these expenses was set aside. A separate ground concerning professional service charges was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: For issue 1 (ITA No. 2066/Kol/2025): The Tribunal held that the assessee had disclosed the property in the balance sheet at Rs. 12,65,850/- consistently. The total of the fixed assets entries (Furniture and Fixture, Plant & Machinery, Property) amounted to Rs. 13,65,317/-. The Tribunal noted that this amount was inadvertently declared as nil in the revised ITR due to a clerical mistake. Since the AO failed to bring any record to prove that the investment of Rs. 13,65,317/- was made during the financial year 2019-20, the addition was deleted. The ratio is that a clerical error in a revised return, if demonstrable, should not lead to an unjustified addition, especially when the AO does not prove the investment was made in the relevant year. For issue 2 (ITA No. 2067/Kol/2025): The Tribunal allowed the enhancement of closing capital by Rs. 3,19,671/-. It found that the AO rejected the assessee's declared cash in hand of Rs. 9,76,671/- and considered it at Rs. 6,57,000/-, thereby not allowing the benefit of capitalisation of the difference. The Tribunal held that the AO's action was not justified and allowed the capitalisation. The ratio is that if a cash balance is supported by evidence and consistently disclosed, it should be accepted for capitalisation purposes. For issue 3 (ITA No. 2068/Kol/2025): The Tribunal quashed the assessment order and deleted the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/-. It found that the assessee had provided explanations for the source of the cash, including opening cash in hand, cash sales, and cash belonging to his mother, supported by documents like balance sheets, GST returns, and rental agreements. Crucially, the Tribunal noted that the AO passed the assessment order without issuing a show cause notice, which is a violation of statutory provisions. The ratio is that an assessment order passed without a show cause notice, when required, is bad in law, and if the assessee has adequately explained the source of funds with evidence, the addition should be deleted. For issue 4 (ITA Nos. 2069, 2070 & 2071/Kol/2025): Since the quantum appeals were decided in favour of the assessee, the Tribunal held that the penalties levied under Section 272A(1)(d) had no basis and were therefore deleted. The operative direction was the deletion of all impugned penalties. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 13,65,317/- as unexplained investment, holding that the assessee had disclosed the property in the balance sheet and the AO failed to prove the investment was made during the relevant year. The Tribunal also deleted additions related to business income, cash in hand, and capital, finding the AO's actions unjustified and quashed the assessment order for not issuing a show cause notice.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in making the addition under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in a section 153A assessment without any incriminating material. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC), which settled the law that for completed (non-abated) assessments, additions under section 153A can only be made if based on incriminating material unearthed during the search. In this case, the assessment was non-abated as no assessment was pending on the search date. The AO did not refer to any seized document suggesting the share application money was bogus, and the addition was based solely on the investor director's non-appearance and general suspicion. The Revenue also failed to point out any seized material linking the share application money with unaccounted income. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessee had produced sufficient documentary evidence establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investor. The burden shifts to the Revenue once these documents are filed, and the mere non-appearance of a director cannot invalidate the documentary evidence. The Revenue did not conduct independent inquiries or bring adverse material. Therefore, the addition under section 68 was not sustainable. The addition of ₹25,00,000 was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 13,65,317/- as unexplained investment, holding that the assessee had disclosed the property in the balance sheet and the AO failed to prove the investment was made during the relevant year. The Tribunal also deleted additions related to business income, cash in hand, and capital, finding the AO's actions unjustified and quashed the assessment order for not issuing a show cause notice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the assessee was a non-resident as he stayed in India for only 29 days. It held that salary accrues at the place where services are rendered, not based on the employer's location or payment source. Consequently, the foreign assignment salary earned in the Philippines by the non-resident assessee cannot be treated as income accruing in India and the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is a Cooperative Society and not a Cooperative Bank. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, it was held that income earned by a Cooperative Society from investments in other Cooperative Societies, including Cooperative Banks, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10B is a procedural requirement and directory, not mandatory. Since Form 10B was available at the time of processing, the exemption could not be denied at the 143(1) stage. The matter was remanded to the AO.