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

ITA 826/JODH/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Shree Jain Swetamber Terapanthi Manav Hitkari Sangh, which appealed against the order of the ADDL/JCIT(A) Prayagraj, sustaining the assessed income of Rs. 32,61,973 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The Central Processing Centre (CPC) had denied the assessee the benefit of exemption under Section 11 and Section 10(23C)(III ad) of the Income Tax Act, as the assessee had marked 'NO' for these options in the return of income. The JCIT(A) rejected the appellant's claim for exemption and sustained the income determined by CPC, citing non-compliance with several notices under Section 250 of the Act. The tribunal found that the JCIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the appeal on technical grounds and confirmed the entire receipts of the assessee without considering the corresponding expenditures.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 840562 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2024-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 30-10-2024
• Laws Referred To: Section 11, Section 10(23C)(III ad), Section 10(23C)(vi), Section 250
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P.R. MIRDHA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 11; 12A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 826/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Shree Jain Swetamber Terapanthi Manav Hitkari Sangh C/o Rajendra Jain Advocate, 106, Akshay Deep Complex, 5th B Road, Sadarpura, Jodhpur PAN No. AAABS2490J DDIT, CPC, BANGALURU Assessee by Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain, Advocate (Physical) Revenue by Shri P.R. Mirdha, Addl. CIT (Virtual) Date of Hearing 18.02.2026. Date of Pronouncement 26.02 .2026. ORDER 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. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 826/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Year 2014-15) 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 has indicated in the return income that it is liable for Audit under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act where the amount eligible for exemption under the aforesaid Section 10(23C)(vi) is shown as zero. 3. Accordingly, pointing out aforesaid discrepancies, the learned JCIT(A) has rejected the appellant’s claim for exemption and sustained the income determined by CPC at Rs. 32,61,973/- by passing an order ex-parte qua the assessee because of non-compliance of the several notices issued under Section 250 of the Act mentioned on page No. 3 of the impugned order. The Ld. JCIT(A) has concluded that the appellant was not interested in prosecuting the appeal and therefore, he finds no reason to interfere with order of the AO and confirmed the findings of the AO/CPC. 4. The learned counsel for the Assessee has admitted the facts that the Assessee Foundation has no registration under Section 12A of the Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 826/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Income Tax Act or 10(23C), however, he submitted that the entire receipts of the Assessee foundation cannot be treated as income of the Assessee. He further submitted that appellant Assessee may be treated as AOP and corresponding expenses may be allowed against the receipts of income shown in ITR as per the provision of law. 5. After giving thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the Ld. JCIT (A) was not justified in rejecting the appeal of the Assessee on technical ground and confirming the entire receipts of the Assessee. In our view, the Assessee’s claim of allowing the benefit of corresponding expenditure against the receipts of income is justified under the provisions of law. 6. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to send back the matter to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (in short “the JAO”) to treat assessee as a AOP and allow the claim of corresponding expenditure against the receipts of income shown in the return of income after due verification as per provisions of law and after granting proper opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. No doubt, Assessee shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the JAO. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 826/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Year 2014-15) 8. Accordingly the matter is restored to the file of the JAO for fresh assessment in accordance with law. 9. In the result this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 26/02/2026 in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (SUDHIR PAREEK) (DR. MITHA LAL MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 26/02/2026. Pritesh Vaishnav PS True copy Copies to : (1) The appellant. (2) The respondent. (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File BY ORDER, Printed from counselvise.com "