TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 370
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5/- instead of returned income of "Nil" as declared by appellant. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by not dealing with the contentions as raised by the appellant vide various submission in an appropriate manner. As such, the appellant contends that the learned CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order. 3. The learned IT authorities erred in law and on facts in passing order u/s 143(1) of the ITA, 1961; without issuing any notice for proposed adjustment and without granting opportunity to appellant to respond to the notice as per provision of section 143(1)(a) of the ITA, 1961; thereby violating the principal of natural justice. As such, the appellant contends that the order passed u/s 143(1) is bad in law and liable to be qu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wed u/s 139 of the IT Act and accordingly Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), Thiruvanantpuram found that the return of income though furnished belatedly but was furnished within the time allowed u/s 139 of the IT Act. Subsequently, on 20.03.2024, Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), Thiruvanantpuram by an order passed u/s 154 of the IT Act dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing that the exemption u/s 11/12 of the IT Act is allowable to the appellant subject to the condition that the audit report was filed within the due date prescribed u/s 44AB of the IT Act. It was found by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), Thiruvanantpuram that the audit report in the instant case was not filed on or before the specified date referred to in section 44AB of the IT Act and, therefore, the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arh Educational Welfare Trust vs. ITO, 2022 (1) TMI 1321 - ITAT Kolkata. (g) Shri Rajkot Vishashrimali Jain Samaj vs. ITO, 150 taxmann.com 361 (Rajkot - Trib.). (h) ITO vs. Camellia Educare Trust, 152 taxmann.com 304 (Kolkata - Trib.). (i) ITO vs. Debendra And Rohini Memorial Trust, 2023 (7) TMI 278 - ITAT Kolkata. 6. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue supported the orders passed by the subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same. It was also pointed out that from a perusal of intimation issued u/s 143(1) it appears that the assessee has not filed any form i.e. specified audit report prior to filing of return of income or along with return of income. In support of its contentions Ld. DR relied on the order pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l of the assessee by observing that audit report was not furnished before the specified date. It is the contention of the assessee that Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), Thiruvanantpuram has erred in not adjudicating the ground no.2 & 3 raised in the appeal memo i.e. Form No.35 and, therefore, the order passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), Thiruvanantpuram is not justified and accordingly needs to be remanded back to his file to adjudicate the ground no.2 & 3 raised in the memo of first appeal i.e. Form No.35. 8. We find some force in the arguments of counsel of the assessee that Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), Thiruvanantpuram failed to take note of ground no.2 and alternative ground no.3 which were specifically raised in grounds of appeal in Form No.35 of first appeal memo....