TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1819
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the learned Addl./JCIT erred in not holding that denial of exemption claimed u/s. 10(23C)(vi) is beyond the scope of section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and therefore the Intimation dated March 18, 2020 issued by CPC is bad in law. 3. That without prejudice to the above, the appellant states that the Order dated March 18, 2020 is wholly arbitrary, bad in law and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as the same does not deal with the objection of the appellant dated December 23, 2019 and as such the learned Addl./JCIT (Appeals) should have set aside the order. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Addl./JCIT erred in not holding that the CPC/Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that in Serial No. 8 and 9 of Form of Return (ITR) though Section 10(23C) was mentioned but Clause (vi) was not mentioned anywhere and because of absence of specific clause mentioned in Part B-TI for taking exemption, the appellant had no other option but to report exempt amount under Serial No. 10 (amount eligible for exemption under any other Clause of Section 10, other than those mentioned in Serial No.&nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....projects/institutions run by the appellant in Schedule Part A-General (1) that the appellant was not eligible to claim deduction under section 10 other than section 10(23C). In the communication, it was proposed to disallow the entire income of Rs. 26,65,66,937/- as exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) as claimed in the return of income. By the said communication the appellant was directed to file its response within 30 days from the issuance of the said communication failing which the return would be processed after making necessary adjustment under section 143(1)(a) of the Act as proposed without providing any further opportunities. 4. The appellant, on December 23, 2019, duly replied the said Communication dated December 4, 2019 through e-filing portal of the Income Tax Department that the income of the appellant was exempt under section 10(23C)(vi), (b) details of section i.e. section 10(23C) (vi) was clearly selected from the drop down list under column details of projects/institution run by the appellant under Part A General Schedule along with details of notification, registration number and approving authority and thus, the claim was rightly made, the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7/- which is claimed by the appellant as exempt income u/s. 10(23C)(vi) of IT Act, in the return of income filed for the year under consideration. These grounds are adjudicated on merit of the case, facts, submission filed by the appellant and material available on record, as under: - Upon careful perusal of the statement of facts and submission filed by the appellant it is seen that the appellant filed its return of income for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2018-19 on 28.03.2019 by declaring total income as Nil along with claiming the exemption income amounting to Rs. 26,65,66,937/- u/s. 10(23C)(vi) of IT Act. During the course of processing of return of income the AO (CPC) did not consider the amount of exemption claimed by the appellant of Rs. 26,65,66,937/- and passed the intimation order u/s. 143(1) of IT Act by making an addition of Rs. 26,65,66,937/- in the total income of the appellant during the year under consideration. Aggrieved with action of AO (CPC) the appellant is in appeal Intimation order u/s 143(1) of the AO (CPC) and submission of the appellant has been carefully perused and appeal is decided as under:- As per the statutory....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the audit report for the year under consideration within the due date since the appellant failed to comply with the statutory requirement to claim the exemption. Hence it is held that the AO (CPC) has correctly passed the intimation order by disallowing the exemption claimed by the appellant during the year under consideration and the intimation order passed by the appellant has no infirmity as such need not be interfered with. Accordingly grounds no. (A) to (K) raised by the appellant being devoid of merit are dismissed herewith." 5. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Rival contentions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR submitted that though the report was filed late on form No. 10BB, however the same was available at the time of processing of the return of income and therefore, the same to have been considered and the exemption claimed should have been allowed. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and requested that the same may be upheld. 7. We have considered the submissions made, gone through the ....