Tribunal-directed tax exemption under section 10(23C)(vi)

Tribunal-directed tax exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) must be granted from assessment year 2018-19 following judicial discipline.

Issue

Whether the revenue can deny a section 10(23C)(vi) tax exemption for the assessment year 2018-19 on the grounds of application timelines, even though the ITAT (Tribunal) had explicitly directed the grant of approval starting from that specific assessment year onwards.

Facts

The assessee is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act that runs an educational institution.
For the assessment year 2018-19, the assessee filed its return of income claiming a tax exemption under section 10(23C)(vi).
The Assessing Officer initially disallowed the entire exemption claim and treated the society’s gross receipts as taxable income.
On appeal, the Commissioner (Exemptions) ruled that taxing gross receipts was incorrect and ordered a recomputation after deducting educational expenditures. However, they denied an alternate exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) because receipts exceeded the Rs 1 crore threshold under Rule 2BC.
Separately, the assessee’s formal application for approval under section 10(23C)(vi) was rejected by tax authorities, but the ITAT subsequently reversed this decision and directed the revenue to grant the approval from AY 2018-19 onwards.
In compliance with the ITAT order, the Commissioner (Exemptions) granted the approval but contended it could only apply from AY 2019-20 onwards, arguing the application date (September 30, 2018) legally restricted its validity to the subsequent fiscal year.

Decision

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee society.
It held that since the ITAT had already issued a clear directive to grant section 10(23C)(vi) approval specifically beginning from the assessment year 2018-19, lower tax authorities were bound by it.
The principle of judicial discipline strictly requires administrative and lower judicial authorities to follow earlier binding orders passed in the assessee’s own case.
Consequently, the revenue’s timeline objections were dismissed, and the assessee was declared fully entitled to the exemption starting from the assessment year 2018-19.

Key Takeaways

Supremacy of Judicial Orders: Higher appellate authority orders (like those from the ITAT) take precedence over standard statutory timeline interpretations by lower-ranking officers.
Judicial Discipline: Once a competent tribunal decides an issue and establishes the effective start date of registration/approval for a specific assessee, the tax department must implement it as directed without altering the effective periods.
Exemption Protection: Educational societies cannot be denied legitimate institutional exemptions through procedural workarounds if the substantive right to approval has already been cleared by a judicial bench.

IN THE ITAT AGRA BENCH ‘DB’

St. Marks School Society

Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (CPC)^*

Sunil Kumar Singh, Judicial Member
and M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member

IT Appeal No. 198 (AGR) of 2022
[Assessment year 2018-19]

APRIL 29, 2026

Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR for the Respondent.

ORDER

M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member.- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 25.11.2022 for the AY 2018-19.

2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds before us:-

“1. That the order of CT(A) is against the law applicable on the facts and circumstances of the Case.

2. That the CIT(A) erred in not allowing the grounds of Appeal that the return filed by the Appellant society was nullity as the Appellant Society which runs only Educational Institutions in the name St. Marks College/School filed return of Income on ITR-7 filed on the date or filing of return, it was neither registered U/S 12A nor had recognition U/S 10(23)(c) of the Income Tax Act.

3. That the CIT(A) erred in not deciding the appeal on it facts that whether the return filed by the Appellant in form No.7 was invalid/nullity or not and assumed that the Appellant assessee deliberately filed Form 7 instead of Form 5 applicable to it as it did not had registration U/s 12A or approval of section 10(23)(c) of income tax act and considered the order dated 30-9-2019 of CIT exemption lucknow to fortify his view ignoring that appeal would have been filed against it to ITAT agra bench agra, now the appeal of assessee society was allowed directing to CIT(exemption) to grant recognition under section 10(23)(c) on 17-03-2020, however recognition certificate has not been issued till now.

4. That the CIT(A) erred in not setting aside the order U/S (143)(1) while directing the AO to re-compute the income

5. That the CIT(A) erred in not considering that the impugned order was U/S (143)(1) and assumed the facts about section 12(A) or 10(23)(C) about which no query was given to the assessee by the AO while intimation U/S 143(1) was issued.

3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The Assessee is a registered society under Societies Registration Act since 14-06-1949 and had filed its return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 in Form No. ITR-7 on 1510-2018 declaring Nil income after claiming exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. The Learned CPC while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act dated 16-12-2019 disallowed the exemption claimed under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act and assessed the entire gross receipts as income of the Assessee at Rs 2,09,28,719. Aggrieved by the said intimation, the Assessee filed an appeal before the Learned NFAC, Delhi on 14-01-2020 contending that the Learned CPC had no jurisdiction under section 143(1) of the Act to disallow the exemption claimed under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act as the same involves examination of facts and cannot be adjusted while processing the return. The Learned NFAC, Delhi vide order dated 25-11-2022 partly allowed the appeal holding that the Learned AO had wrongly treated the entire gross receipts as income. The Learned CITA directed the Learned AO to recompute the income after allowing expenditure incurred for earning the receipts of the educational institution.However, the Learned CITA erred in law in directing denial of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act on the ground that the receipts exceeded Rs one crore as prescribed under Rule 2BC of the Income Tax Rules. It is pertinent to note that the Assessee had not claimed exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. The Assessee’s claim was specifically made only under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Learned CITA, the Assessee preferred an appeal before this Tribunal. This tribunal vide order dated 24-06-2025 dismissed the appeal ex parte affirming the directions of the Learned CITA.

4. Meanwhile, the Learned CIT (Exemptions), Lucknow had earlier rejected the Assessee’s application for approval under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act vide order dated 30-09-2019. The Assessee challenged the said order before this Tribunal in St. Marks School Society v. CIT (Exemption) [IT Appeal No. 366/Agr/2019]. This Tribunal vide order dated 17-03-2020 held that the Assessee society is entitled to recognition under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. In compliance with the directions of the Tribunal, the Learned CIT (Exemptions), Lucknow passed an order dated 29-11-2023 granting registration to the Assessee but incorrectly stated that the provisions of section 11 and 12 of the Act would apply from assessment year 2019-20 for the Assessee. The Assessee again challenged the said order before this Tribunal in St. Marks School Society v. CIT (Exemption) [IT Appeal No. 28/Agr/2024]. This Tribunal vide its order dated 13-02-2025 held that the Learned CIT (E) had no jurisdiction to alter the statutory provision applicable to the Assessee’s application and concluded that the Assessee is entitled for approval under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act for assessment year 2018-19.

5. The aforesaid facts are not in dispute. The Learned DR vehemently argued that pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, the Assessee would be entitled for exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. The Learned DR submitted that the application seeking registration under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act itself was made by the Assessee was made on 30-9-2018 and hence the registration would be available only from 1-4-2018 which is commencing from Assessment Year 2019-20 onwards. Hence he submitted that for the Assessment Year 2018-19, the Assessee would not be entitled for exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act.

6. In our considered opinion, the Tribunal had already directed the Learned CIT (Exemptions) to grant registration under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act for the assessment year 2018-19 and onwards. It is the mistake committed by the Learned CIT (Exemptions), Lucknow by not adhering to the order of this Tribunal and by wrongly granting registration under section 11 and 12 of the Act instead of section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. This mistake committed by the Learned CIT (Exemptions) had paved way for this another round of proceedings before us. This is effectively the third round of proceedings before us. At this juncture, the fresh argument advanced by the Learned CIT DR before us that application has been made only on 30-9-2018 and hence the registration would be available only from assessment year 2019-20 onwards, though at first instance, may appear to be factual and fancy, still this Tribunal would be bound and governed by the order passed by the coordinate bench of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the year for assessment year 2018-19 itself. Hence we are constrained to follow the said orderas a matter of judicial discipline and accordingly hold that as Assessee would be entitled for exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act from assessment year 2018-19 onwards.The Learned AO is directed accordingly. The grounds raised by the Assessee are allowed.

7. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed.