BETHSAIDA WOMEN DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,TRIVANDRUM V. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION WARD) TRIVANDRUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

ITA 283/COCH/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Bethsaida Women Development Society, a religious institution based in Trivandrum, which was scrutinized by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) due to substantial deposits made during the demonetization period. The ITO assessed the society for the Assessment Year 2017-18, applying the Maximum Marginal Rate on the deposits as 'income from other sources' since the society filed a belated return of income. The society appealed to the CIT(A), arguing that it was not mandatory to file the income tax return to claim benefits under sections 11 & 12 of the Act for the impugned year. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, relying on a judgment from Nileshwar reported in 459 ITR 730 (Kerala). The society then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need to consider the specific clause of section 12A and relevant Supreme Court judgments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 668793 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Nileshwar vs. 459 ITR 730 (Kerala), Wipro vs. 446 ITR 1
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P.V. CHACKO
• Keywords: Maximum Marginal Rate
• Section: 11; 12A; 139; 12

Judgement Text

"ITA No.283/Coch/2025 Bethsaida Women Development Societey, Trivandrum IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH:COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.283/Coch/2025 AssessmentYear:2017-18 Bethsaida Women Development Society MukkolaMulloor PO Trivandrum 695 521 Kerala PAN NO : AAATB6734E Vs. ITO Exemption Ward Trivandrum APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri P.V. Chacko, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 29.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025 O R D E R PERPRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 22.2.2025 having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073595898(1) and relates to the AY 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case as coming out from the orders of authorities below are that the assessee is a religious institution and has been granted approval u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) from the office of Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Trivandrum. During the impugned year, the assessee has deposited an amount of Rs.7,85,500/- during the period of demonetization. By observing this, the case of the assessee has been picked up for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has not filed any ITA No.283/Coch/2025 Bethsaida Women Development Societey, Trivandrum Page 2 of 3 return of income for the impugned assessment yar. The AO further observed that the return of income filed by the assessee on 27.4.2018 is a belated return and assessee cannot claim the benefits of section 12A of the Act. Thereafter, the AO taxed the entire deposits by applying Maximum Marginal Rate under the head “income from other sources”. 3. Aggrieved with the order of AO, assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and argued that for the impugned year, it was not mandatory to file the income tax return for claiming benefits u/s 11 & 12 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) relying upon the judgement of Nileshwar reported in 459 ITR 730 (Kerala) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Counsel for the assessee appearing on behalf of the assessee argued that amendment made in section 12A of the Act in clause (ba) is prospective in nature and could not be applied to the present case. 5. Ld. D.R. relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 6. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on record, it is observed that time limit to file a valid return in terms of the provisions of section 139 of the Act has been increased by the CBDT( Circular Number-3 of 2017 dated 20.01.2017) upto 31.3.2018. However, the assessee in this case before us, has filed the return of income on 27.4.2018, which is beyond the time limit as extended by the CBDT. Perusal of the order of ld. CIT(A) would show that the ld. CIT(A) has not at all discussed about the applicability of clause (ba) of section 12A of the Act. Therefore, we remit this matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh in accordance with law. The ld. CIT(A) will also ITA No.283/Coch/2025 Bethsaida Women Development Societey, Trivandrum Page 3 of 3 consider the judgement of Wipro rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 446 ITR 1. With these observations, we remit this matter to the file of ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, that ld. CIT(A) will grant meaningful opportunity to the assessee before passing any order. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd June, 2025 Sd/- (Inturi Rama Rao) Accountant Member Sd/- (Prakash Chand Yadav) JudicialMember Bangalore, Dated 23rd Jun, 2025. VG/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Cochin. 5 Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Cochin. "