Viswa Bharati Foundation Trust, Balaram Nagar Vs the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi

1. Questioning the competency, authority and jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) in issuing notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “IT Act”) without specific approval of concerned authorities pertaining to the assessment year 2023-24 that too during the existence of 12AA(2) of the IT Act, the present writ petition has been filed under the provisions of Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶14

2. The petitioner, a Charitable Trust, on the strength of certification of exemption under Section 12AA of the IT Act has been availing benefit on expenditure. On the application of the petitioner, provisional registration certificate in Form 10AC (Section 12AA) was granted in its favour vide No.AAATV7720QE20206 dated 27^th May, 2021. Due to mistake in the said certificate, petitioner had sought for correction. Pursuant to the same, the Authority concerned granted correction in Form

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

10AC, Registration Certificate on 7^th August, 2023 bearing No.AAATV7720QE20211 from the assessment year 2022-23 to 2026-27.

¶17

2.1. It is further case of the petitioner that in view of the aforesaid correction, the case of the petitioner ought not to have been made under the provision of ‘Compulsory Scrutiny Assessment”. However, the assessment order was passed under Section 144 read with Section 144B of the IT Act ex parte and in absence of participation by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said assessment order, the petitioner filed an application on dated 29^th April, 2025 under Section 154 of the IT Act, but the Assessing Officer rejected the said application vide order dated 18^th July, 2025 by holding that as there is no clerical or arithmetical mistake apparent from the record.

¶18

3. It is submitted by Mr. Jagamohan Pattanaik, learned counsel for the petitioner that for consideration of petition under Section 154 of the IT Act, as per sub-section (3) of Section 154 of the IT Act, reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee is mandatory. He draws attention of this Court to Annexure-14, wherein the Authority has fixed the date of personal hearing on 28^th July, 2025 at 11.00 AM., but the said Authority had passed the order advancing the date so scheduled.

¶19

3.1. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since order rejecting the application under Section 154 has been passed on 18^th July, 2025 prior to the said date fixed for hearing, i.e ., 28^th July, 2025, thereby the hearing as mandatorily required under Section 154(3) of the IT Act is denied to the petitioner. Such an action of the Authority concerned is, urged by the counsel for the petitioner, arbitrary, whimsical and untenable.

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

4. Mr. Subash Chandra Mohanty, learned Senior Standing Counsel being assisted by Mr. Avinash Kedia, learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department has conceded that the record reveals the correct position as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶22

5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department.

¶23

6. Faced with aforesaid situation, having perused the record, this Court is satisfied that the concerned Authority has antedated the date of hearing to 18^th July, 2025 and passed the assessment order. When the Authority fixed date of hearing on 28^th July, 2025, it was incumbent upon him to ascertain whether the date advanced was made known to the assessee before passing the order in his absence. Section 154(3) of the IT Act obligates the Authority to afford opportunity of hearing. Since the order passed under Section 154 affecting the claim of the petitioner-assessee prior to the date fixed for hearing, the same cannot be sustained for want of adherence to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, indulgence in the matter is warranted.

¶24

6.1. This Court, hence, sets aside the order dated 18^th July, 2025 (Annexure-15) and remit the matter to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, BBN (opposite party no.4) to proceed further and pass order afresh after affording the petitioner opportunity of hearing. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The authority concerned is free to pass reasoned order thereon without being influenced by any of the observation made supra . The entire

¶25

Page 3 of 4

¶26

exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶27

7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Interlocutory Application(s) pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶28

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

¶29

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶30

MRS/Laxmikant

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 19-Dec-2025 19:10:20

¶33

Page 4 of 4

Viswa Bharati Foundation Trust, Balaram Nagar v. the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Viswa Bharati Foundation Trust, Balaram Nagar v. the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prasanta Kumar Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Krishna Bapi Raju G Vs Union of India

Tikina Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

M/S.Chita Ranjan Lenka, Cuttack Vs Chief Commissioner of Ct and Gst, Cuttack

Nirod Kumar Sahoo Vs Union of India

Satyaranjan Hota Vs State of Odisha