PALLAVI ANADHA VRUDHAASHRAMAM,R R DISTRICT V. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 1285/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Pallavi Anadha Vrudhaashramam, an organization providing shelter and support to the elderly and mentally retarded, which filed an appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (CIT(A)). The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-submission of required documents, despite multiple notices. The primary legal contention was the denial of exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the assessee's application for registration under section 12AB was rejected. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits, as required by law, even in the absence of the assessee's response.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 777864 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Appeal Filed On: 12-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs. B N Bhattacharjee & Others, PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SACHIN KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: A.V.RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Competent authority
• Section: 11

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1285/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2022-23) M/s. Pallavi Anadha Vrudhaashramam, R.R. District. PAN: AABTP6928R Vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward 1(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 06/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 13.06.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2022-23. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is providing shelter and support to old age beggars on road sides, services to mentally retarded persons to the women and old age people. The Return of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1285/Hyd/2025 2 Income was filed by the assessee on 29.10.2022 for the Asst. Year 2022-23 declaring NIL income after claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). However, the assessee had filed an application for registration u/s. 12AB of the Act before the competent authority and the same had been rejected vide Form No.10AD on 24.02.2023. The assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer determining the total income of Rs.23,51,440/- denying exemption u/s.11 of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) issued notices u/s. 250 of the Act calling the assessee to furnish documentary evidences. Despite issuing of notices, the assessee did not file requisite details as called for by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) in absence of any documentary evidences filed by the assessee to substantiate its case by respectfully following the judgment in the case of CIT Vs. B N Bhattacharjee & Others 10 CTR 354 (SC) dismissed the appeal of the assessee, 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. AO Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1285/Hyd/2025 3 and the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee exparte without providing an opportunity of hearing. He further submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have decided appeal on merits. Even if the assessee did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the issues on merits. He prayed that one more opportunity be given to the assessee for presenting its case before the Ld. CIT(A) with evidences, in the interest of justice. 5. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of authorities below. He submitted that despite providing various opportunities by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not respond to the notices issued. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. He accordingly submitted that the order of Ld. CIT(A) shall be upheld. 6. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. I find that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal exparte. As contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act, the CIT(A) is required to frame points of determination followed by a detailed discussion thereupon before passing the order. It is the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1285/Hyd/2025 4 settled position of law that the CIT(A), even while disposing of the appeal exparte, is his duty bound to dispose of the appeal on merits. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra 279 CTR 614. Therefore, in the light of the above legal position I am of the considered view that the matter requires to be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to dispose of the appeal de novo on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 8th Oct., 2025. Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad. Dated: 08.10.2025. * Reddy gp Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1285/Hyd/2025 5 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. M/s. Pallavi Anadha Vrudhaashramam, 15-28, Tirumalagiri Airforce Academy, R.R. District – 500 043 2. The ITO (Exermptiuons), Ward 1(3), Hyderabad. 3. Pr.CIT (Exemptions), Hyderabad. 4. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, Printed from counselvise.com "