High Court of Orissa · Judgments and reasoned final orders
Kendrapara College v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) and Another
WP(C) No. 4169 of 2026 ·
Section 143(1) CPC intimation passed before expiry of the 30-day clarification window and CIT(E)'s section 264 rejection set aside where a government-aided college claimed section 10(23C)(iiiab) exemption in ITR-7 but inadvertently typed '0' in Part-2B(2b).
1. FACTS OF THE CASE
Kendrapara College, an educational institution substantially financed by the Government and eligible for exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab), filed its return in Form ITR-7 for AY 2023-24. While it explicitly selected section 10(23C)(iiiab) at Serial No. A17 of Form ITR-7, it inadvertently entered '0' in Part-2B(2b) relating to the exemption amount. On 29.11.2024, CPC issued a communication granting 30 days to explain the discrepancy, but before the 30-day period expired on 29.12.2024, CPC passed an intimation under section 143(1) on 23.12.2024 raising a demand of Rs. 2,34,47,050. The college's revision petition under section 264 was also rejected by the CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad on 27.11.2025 by invoking Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT.
2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT
The Division Bench held that the section 143(1) intimation dated 23.12.2024 suffered from a patent procedural illegality because it was passed prematurely inside the 30-day response window promised in CPC's own communication dated 29.11.2024. Furthermore, the CIT (Exemption) erred in rejecting the section 264 revision petition on the basis of Goetze (India) Ltd., which restricts only the Assessing Officer from entertaining a fresh claim without a revised return and does not fetter the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner under section 264 or correction of an obvious data-entry slip in Form ITR-7.
3. JUDICIAL DECISION
The High Court set aside both the section 143(1) intimation dated 23.12.2024 and the section 264 revisional order dated 27.11.2025, and remitted the matter to the CPC/authority to re-examine the return for AY 2023-24 after considering the college's explanation regarding the section 10(23C)(iiiab) entry.
4. OUTCOME
In favour of the assessee (Kendrapara College); section 143(1) intimation dated 23.12.2024 and section 264 order dated 27.11.2025 set aside and remitted.
5. AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: Two key principles emerge: (1) CPC cannot pass a section 143(1) intimation before the expiry of the 30-day notice period stipulated under the first/second proviso to section 143(1)(a); and (2) Goetze (India) Ltd. does not bar the Commissioner under section 264 from rectifying an inadvertent '0' entry in ITR-7 where section 10(23C)(iiiab) eligibility was already declared in the return.
Source and verification
Reviewed from the complete 4-page official High Court judgment PDF (20260219_ODHC010087692026.pdf, SHA-256: 817dc46dde316a9f99134b4af3e9df042f292fab0eb6d4b71acd7c7de6c4b6d0).
Original PDF: 4 pages · SHA-256: 817dc46dde316a9f99134b4af3e9df042f292fab0eb6d4b71acd7c7de6c4b6d0
Supplied source-reviewed note retained; original bytes and identity validation checked in this release. Substantive re-review is not claimed for this record.
Refers to the Income-tax Act, 1961 and allied statutory rules/circulars as applicable to the relevant assessment years.
No subsequent Supreme Court reversal or stay is recorded in the source judgment text.
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.