High Court of Orissa · Procedural orders
Brahmani College v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad & Anr.
WP(C) No.4281 of 2026 ·
Brahmani College: premature CPC intimation set aside; existing exemption claim remitted for a hearing.
1. FACTS OF THE CASE
The college claimed section 10(23C)(iiiab) exemption in AY 2023–24 ITR 7 but entered zero in Part-2B(2b). CPC sought clarification on 29 November 2024 allowing 30 days, then issued an adverse section 143(1) intimation on 23 December 2024. A section 264 application filed 21 January 2025 was rejected 27 November 2025 relying on Goetze (India).
2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT
The Court found the exemption claim visible at serial A17 of ITR 7 and the zero entry a human data-entry error. The revisional authority had wrongly proceeded as if no claim existed. CPC acted before its own response period expired, depriving the college of an opportunity to clarify and substantiate the claim.
3. JUDICIAL DECISION
The 23 December 2024 intimation was set aside and the matter remitted to CPC for fresh consideration of the explanation after adequate opportunity to substantiate exemption. The writ and pending applications were disposed of.
4. OUTCOME
Assessee obtained reconsideration with a hearing; the High Court did not finally grant or quantify the exemption.
5. Expert Comments
AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.
An existing claim differs from a new deduction
The finding rests on A17 showing an exemption already claimed despite the conflicting zero entry. This decision should not be presented as a universal ruling allowing every new claim without a revised return.
Source: PDF p. 3
The promised response period mattered
The chronology shows CPC deciding on 23 December before 30 days from 29 November had elapsed. Preserve the actual communication and intimation dates rather than substituting a general complaint about lack of hearing.
Source: PDF p. 3
Relief returns to CPC
The operative remand is to CPC to assess the explanation and evidence. It is not a direction to the revisional authority to grant exemption, and it states no invented refund amount or fixed disposal deadline.
Source: PDF p. 4
Source and verification
Complete 4-page court PDF read for this correction.
Original PDF: 4 pages · SHA-256: 00bb5aed61b76ffc2467d1afb08b50b18c7aa26a2b241faaf70c2fb4871ce918
Complete source text and every original page visually reviewed; identity and SHA-256 checked. AI-assisted source analysis.
The note distinguishes the provisions actually considered from references appearing only in submissions or quoted earlier decisions.
Subsequent judicial treatment has not been independently verified.
AI disclosure and professional disclaimer
AI-assisted source review. Independent human approval is not represented.
General research only. Read the complete judgment and verify applicable law and subsequent treatment before reliance.
