FAMILY PHYSICIANS ASSOCIATION,BANGALORE V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS , BANGALORE

ITA 2037/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Family Physicians Association, a charitable trust, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Faridabad. The primary issue was the dismissal of their appeal in limine by the CIT(A), which was based on the grounds that the appeal was directed against a non-appealable communication regarding proposed adjustments to an intimation order under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had initially failed to furnish Form 10 with their return, claiming accumulation of income under section 11(2) of the Act, which was later disallowed. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the procedural correctness of the CIT(A)'s dismissal but also allowed the possibility for the assessee to seek redress through a new appeal against the subsequent intimation order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 840601 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 18-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: REVENUE; GANESH R GHALE; STANDING
• Assessee Lawyers: K.S NAGESH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Revised return; Rectification of order; Charitable institution; Right to appeal
• Section: 11

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2037/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Family Physicians Association, 103, Block – D, MIG Flats, Domlur, Bangalore North, Bengaluru – 560 071. PAN – AAATF 1083 G Vs. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri K.S Nagesh, CA Revenue by : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing Counsel for Revenue Date of hearing : 02.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 25.02.2026 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The present appeal, filed at the instance of the assessee, is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) by the office of Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, ADDL/JCIT(A) Faridabad (hereafter learned CIT(A)) for the assessment year 2017-18, dated 31st July 2025. 2. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2037/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 6 . 3. The relevant facts are that the assessee is a charitable trust. The assessee for the A.Y. 2017-18 filed returned of income as on 30th August 2017 claiming accumulation of income of Rs. 8,67,434/- under section 11(2) of the Act but failed to furnished declaration in Form 10 as required under the Act. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act by the CPC Bengaluru as on 09-03-2019 wherein claim of accumulation under section 11(2) of the Act was disallowed in the absence of Form 10 and accordingly demand was raised. 4. Being aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) against the intimation order. 5. The learned CIT(A) on examination of appeal records noted that the assessee has filed appeal against the intimation order dated 29th October 2018. However, there was no such intimation order under section 143(1) of the Act was passed on such date. Indeed, on 29th October 2018 a communication letter proposing adjustment in intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act was issued. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) held that the communication notice/letter issued as on 29th October 2018 is not appealable order. Hence, the ld. CIT-A dismiss the assessee’s appeal in limine. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The learned AR before us submitted that the assessee for the year under consideration filed return of income at NIL claiming deduction under section 11(1) and 11(2) of the Act but inadvertently Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2037/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 6 . failed to furnish declaration in Form-10 which was not mandatory but procedural requirements. 7.1 The assessee received communication dated 29th October 2018 for proposed adjustment but no intimation order under section 143(1) of the Act was received. The assessee realising the inadvertent mistake of not furnishing Form-10 file revised return as on 3rd August 2019 along with Form-10 and filed rectification request on the same date. The rectification order was passed as on 23rd November 2019 but never received rectification order. 7.2 Later, the assessee was surprised to discover that a demand was raised in the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 09-03-2019. Hence, a grievance application was filed as on 15th October 2022 which was closed as on 29-02-2024 showing grievance resolved without giving any explanation. 7.3 Hence, the assessee preferred to file appeal before the learned CIT(A) who without going into merit of the case dismissed the appeal in limine. Accordingly, the learned AR contended that assessee in the original return complied with all the requirements for claiming deduction under section 11 of the Act except for furnishing form-10. However later, the assessee complied with the procedural requirement by furnishing Form-10 along with the revised return. Therefore, the learned AR prayed that the demand raised should be deleted. 8. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (DR) strongly supported the order of the learned CIT(A). The learned DR Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2037/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 6 . submitted that the appeal filed before the learned CIT(A) was admittedly directed against a communication dated 29.10.2018, which was only a proposed adjustment under section 143(1) of the Act. Such communication is merely an intimation of proposed action and does not determine the total income or tax liability of the assessee. Therefore, it does not constitute an “intimation” or “order” appealable under section 246A of the Act. 8.1 It was further contended that the right of appeal is a statutory right and can be exercised only in respect of orders specifically made appealable under the Act. Since no appealable order existed on 29.10.2018, the learned CIT(A) had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, the dismissal of the appeal in limine was perfectly in accordance with law. 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials placed on record, including the sequence of events noted in the case record. The short issue before us is whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine on the ground that the appeal was filed against a non-appealable communication. 9.1 From the record, it is clear that the assessee had filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A) against a communication dated 29.10.2018. However, as rightly noted by the learned CIT(A), no intimation under section 143(1) of the Act was passed on that date. What was issued on 29.10.2018 was only a communication proposing adjustments. Such a communication is merely an intimation of proposed action and does not determine any tax liability. It does not partake the character of an Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2037/Bang/2025 Page 5 of 6 . “order” or “intimation” within the meaning of section 246A of the Act. Therefore, it is not an appealable order. 9.2 An appeal is a statutory remedy and can be maintained only against orders specifically made appealable under the Act. Since no appealable order existed on 29.10.2018, the learned CIT(A) was correct in holding that the appeal filed against such communication was not maintainable. In these circumstances, dismissal of the appeal in limine cannot be faulted. We therefore uphold the action of the learned CIT(A) in treating the appeal as not maintainable. 9.3 However, the record further shows that an intimation under section 143(1) of the Act was in fact issued on 09.03.2019, whereby the claim under section 11(2) of the Act was disallowed and demand was raised. Such intimation is specifically appealable under section 246A of the Act. The proper course available to the assessee was to file an appeal before the learned CIT(A) against the intimation dated 09.03.2019. 9.4 It is also evident from the record that the assessee has been pursuing the matter by filing a revised return, rectification request and grievance application etc. The appeal earlier filed came to be dismissed on a technical ground, namely that it was directed against a non- appealable communication. In our view, since the dismissal was not on merits but on technical grounds, the assessee should not be left remediless. Accordingly, while upholding the order of the learned CIT(A) dismissing the earlier appeal as not maintainable, we observe that it is open to the assessee to file a fresh appeal before the learned CIT(A) Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2037/Bang/2025 Page 6 of 6 . against the intimation under section 143(1) dated 09.03.2019, if not already filed. If such appeal is filed, the learned CIT(A) may consider the same in accordance with law, including the question of limitation, and keeping in view the fact that the assessee has been vigilant in pursuing its remedy and that the earlier appeal was dismissed on a technical ground. The learned CIT(A) may thereafter adjudicate the issue on merits after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard. With these observations, the appeal of the assessee stands disposed of. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed as non-est with the above observations. Order pronounced in court on 25th day of February, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (KESHAV DUBEY) (WASEEM AHMED) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore Dated, 25th February, 2026 / vms / Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore Printed from counselvise.com "