AKSHAT EDUCATION AND CHARTABLE TRUST,ANAND V. THE ITO, WARD EXEMPTION, VADODARA

ITA 1653/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Akshat Education and Charitable Trust, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning the Assessment Year 2022-2023. The primary contention was the denial of exemption under section 10(23C)(via) of the Income Tax Act, despite the trust holding a valid approval in Form 10AC. The trust argued that the CPC erred in assessing income based on gross receipts without allowing legitimate revenue expenses and that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on incorrect premises regarding the filing of audit reports in Forms 10B/10BB. The Tribunal found that the core issue of a clerical error in registration particulars, which was rectified in the rectification request, was not properly adjudicated by the CIT(A).

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 779499 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Appeal Filed On: 28-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UDAY KISHANRAO KAKNE
• Assessee Lawyers: MEHUL THAKKAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Corroborative evidences; Charitable institution
• Section: 154; 10B

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.1653/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-2023) Akshat Education and Charitable Trust, 5/35, Gosainu Faliyu Asodar, Borsad Road, Anand-388307. [PAN :AAETA2211 K] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-(Exemption), Vadodara. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Mehul Thakkar, AR Respondent by: Shri Uday Kishanrao Kakne, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 15.10.2025 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER :- The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide order dated 30.06.2025 relevant to the Assessment Year 2022-2023. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of CPC despite there being a clear mistake apparent from record in the order passed under section 154 of the Income Tax Act. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1653/Ahd/2025 Asst. Year : 2022-23 - 2– 2. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of CPC in denying exemption u/s 10(23C)(via) of 1,13,04,684/- even though the appellant holds a valid and subsisting approval in Form 10AC. 3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that once approval is validly granted under the Statute, denial of exemption u/s 10(23C)(via) on purely technical ground is against the settled principles of law and defeats the object of the statute. 4. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the CPC had erred in assessing the income at gross receipts of ₹1,13,04,684/-, without allowing legitimate revenue expenses, contrary to the settled principle that only net income is taxable. 5. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that even if exemption under Section 10(23C)(via) were to be rejected for any reason, the appellant was still entitled to deduction of revenue expenses incurred for running its educational activities. 6. Without prejudice and in alternate, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in appreciating the case on hand is not a case of non- filing of audit report but a case of filing audit report in a different Form. The audit report in Form no. 108 submitted online, though technically incorrect, contained all necessary disclosures required for Form 10BB and therefore omission thereof, caused no prejudice to revenue since the purpose of filing Form 10BB stood effectively served. 7. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or modify any of the above grounds at the time of hearing. 3. The facts of the case are that assessee, Akshat Education and Charitable Trust, is a registered charitable trust engaged in educational activities and had duly filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2022–23 on 31.10.2022 (within the extended due date of 07.11.2022), declaring total income at Rs.Nil. The return was processed under section 143(1) by the CPC, Bengaluru, on 31.03.2023, wherein the income was assessed at Rs.1,13,04,684/-, representing the gross receipts of the appellant. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1653/Ahd/2025 Asst. Year : 2022-23 - 3– 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the CPC disallowed exemption claimed under section 10(23C)(via) due to a mismatch in the registration particulars in the ITR. The assessee thereafter corrected the relevant particulars on the Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) portal and sought reprocessing of the return. The request was treated as a rectification application under section 154 of the Act. The CPC, however, rejected the rectification application on 01.12.2023, reiterating the same reasons as in the initial processing order, without appreciating that the error was clerical and apparent from record and, therefore, rectifiable under section 154. 5. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, due to an inadvertent drafting error, the grounds raised pertained to the filing of Form 10B instead of Form 10BB—an issue that was never raised before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A), vide order dated 30.06.2025, proceeded to dispose of the appeal on the incorrect premise of Form 10B/10BB filing and dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the actual issue relating to the mismatch in registration particulars. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 7. On perusal of the record and after considering the submissions of the Ld. Counsel, we observe that the core issue involved in the present appeal namely, the mismatch in registration details resulting in denial of exemption under section 10(23C)(via) has not been properly adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) proceeded on an incorrect Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1653/Ahd/2025 Asst. Year : 2022-23 - 4– assumption that the dispute pertained to the filing of audit report in Form 10B/10BB, whereas the real grievance related to a clerical error in the ITR regarding the registration particulars, which was subsequently corrected in the rectification request. In the interest of justice, we provide an opportunity to the assessee to present its case on the correct issue Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for de novo adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) shall consider the rectification application, examine the validity of the appellant’s claim of exemption under section 10(23C)(via), and pass a speaking order in accordance with law after providing an opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is directed to fully cooperate in the appellate proceedings and furnish all relevant documents, registration certificates, and other supporting evidence as may be required for proper adjudication of the matter. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 15.10.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) VICE-PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 15.10.2025 MV Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1653/Ahd/2025 Asst. Year : 2022-23 - 5– आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com "