SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 1711

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (PATNA BENCH)
SHASHI KRISHNA EDUCATIONAL AVAM WELFARE SOCIETY PATNA – Appellant
Versus
AO PATNA – Respondent
ITA 428/PAT/2025[2018-19]



##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

PATNADB BENCH AT KOLKATA

[Virtual Court]

Before

SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

&

SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.: 428/PAT/2025

Assessment Year: 2018-19

Shashi Krishna Educational ITO Exemption, Patna

Avam Welfare Society Vs.

(Appellant) (Respondent)

PAN: AAEAS1921K

Appearances:

Assessee represented by : Pankaj Jyoti, CA.

Department represented by : Md. A H Chowdhury, CIT (DR).

Date of concluding the hearing : 05-January-2026

Date of pronouncing the order : 29-January-2026

ORDER

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the

Addl/JCIT(A)- 6, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as Ld. ‘Addl/JCIT(A)']

passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as

‘the Act’) for AY 2018-19 dated 19.08.2025.

2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following

grounds of appeal:

“1. That the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) is bad in law and

unsustainable on facts.

2. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding denial of exemption u/s 11

ignoring that the appellant is duly registered u/s 12A and had furnished

the Audit Report in Form 10B before completion of assessment.

3. That the Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that delay in filing Form 10B

is a procedural/technical lapse and the same stands condonable in view of

various CBDT Circulars and judicial pronouncements (including CIT v.

Xavier’s Kelavam Mandal Pvt. Ltd. [Taxmann], Trustees of Tulsidas Gopalji

##PAGE2##

Page | 2

ITA No.: 428/PAT/2025

Assessment Year: 2018-19

Shashi Krishna Educational Avam Welfare Society.

Charitable Trust v. CIT 1994 207 ITR 368 Bom.), wherein it has been held

that exemption cannot be denied merely due to late filing of audit report

when substantive conditions are fulfilled.

4. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the entire gross receipts are

taxable without allowing expenditure, whereas it is settled law that only

surplus of income over expenditure is taxable even if exemption is denied

(CIT v. Society for Promotion of Education, Adventure Sport and

Conservation of Environment (2016) 382 ITR 6 (SC)).

5. That the authorities below failed to appreciate that the appellant had in

fact applied Rs. 1,06,33,000/- towards revenue expenditure, further

applied Rs. 13,50,900/- towards capital expenditure (excluding borrowed

funds), and set apart Rs. 7,92,441/- (within the 15% permissible limit u/s

U(l)(a)) for charitable purposes, and therefore the conditions of section 11

were duly complied with.

6. That the demand of Rs. 53,13,260/- is unjustified, arbitrary, and

deserves to be quashed.

7. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter or withdraw any ground of

appeal at the time of hearing.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an AOP and had

filed the return of income for AY 2018-19 on 11.09.2018 showing ‘NIL’

income. The return was first processed u/s 143(1) of the Act making

certain adjustments/raising tax payable over and above the returned

income/tax payable. Against the said Intimation, the assessee filed a

rectification request which was rejected by the CPC vide its order u/s

154 of the Act dated 02.01.2020. Aggrieved with the assessment order,

the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide, order dated

19.08.2025, dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under:

“5.1 I have carefully gone through the Intimation u/s 143(1), the grounds of

appeal and submission made by the appellant in this regard. Briefly stating

facts of the case is that the appellant filed return of income which was

processed u/s 143(1) by CPC making certain adjustments over and above

the returned income. The only issue involved in this case is that the

appellant which is an AOP had claimed exemption u/s 11 of the I.T. Act

against its income which was disallowed in the Intimation u/s 143(1).

5.2 All the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are against denying

exemption u/s 11 of the I.T. Act and also against taxing the entire receipts

##PAGE3##

Page | 3

ITA N

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top