SWAMI VIDYADHIRAJ TEERTH CHARITABLE TRUST,CANCONA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH “DB”, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.106/PAN/2025 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Swami Vidyadhiraj Teerth Vs. ITO, National e- Charitable Trust, Assessment Centre, Shree Saunsthan Gokarn Delhi. Partagalijevottam Math, Partagali, Cancona- 403702. PAN : AAGTS5803F Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri P. K. Bansal Revenue by : Shri Narasimharaju M. Date of hearing : 19.08.2026 Date of pronouncement : 21.09.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 07.08.2023 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. There is delay in filing of the present appeal. After going through the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of

2 ITA No.106/PAN/2025 delay duly supported by an affidavit that the applicant was prevented by sufficient & reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1) The order of the Id CIT(A) is bad in law and is void-ab-initio. 2) The order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Id AO and sustained by the ld CIT(A) is without jurisdiction, misconceived and without following the principles of natural justice. 3) The Hon. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal as not prosecuted by the appellant, without considering the fact that the authorized representative of the appellant who was handling the matter expired and the appellant was collecting the old documents for submitting to the department. 4) The Id CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the amount set-aside by the appellant was towards the specific purpose, details of which were also submitted during the assessment proceedings. 5) The Id AO and Id CIT(A) has erred in making the addition of Rs.5,00,00,000/- to the total income of the appellant without considering the facts and the submission made by the appellant. 6) The ld CIT(A) and the Id AO has erred in making the addition to the total income of the appellant under presumptions and surmise. 7) With these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the appellant prays for relief sought for.” 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a charitable trust involved in imparting education, promoting health and other social objects and duly registered u/s 12AA of the IT Act since

3 ITA No.106/PAN/2025 23.01.2009 as well as u/s 80G of the IT Act. The assessee trust has furnished its return of income u/s 139(1) of the IT Act on 24.09.2018 by declaring total income of Rs.Nil after claiming deduction u/s 11 of the IT Act. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the IT Act, subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) respectively were issued to the assessee, in response to which, the assessee trust furnished the relevant details online electronically on the e-portal. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee trust has accumulated an amount of Rs.5 crores out of current years un-utilized income and claimed deduction of Rs.5 crores u/s 11(2) of the IT Act. However, the Assessing Officer found that in Form 10 furnished by the assessee, the specific purpose for which the accumulation is made u/s 11(2) of the IT Act was not mentioned rather it was mentioned “Expenses towards object of the Math”. According to the Assessing Officer, the above statement was very vague and general in nature. Therefore, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 03.02.2021 completed the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the IT Act by determining the total income of the assessse at Rs.5 crores as against income of Rs.Nil returned

4 ITA No.106/PAN/2025 by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.5 crores being disallowance of deduction u/s 11(2) of the IT Act. 5. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal by observing as under :- “5. In the instance of the case the appellant failed to make any submissions in support of grounds of appeal, this gives rise to an undisputable conclusion that the assessee has got nothing more to say in this regard. I have gone through the record before me and based on the record I have decided to adjudicate the issue on the merits of the case. In the instant case the AO has rightly assessed an income of Rs. 5,00,00,000/-. Since the appellant failed to substantiate appellant's claim and addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- is hereby confirmed. 6. Grounds No. 1 to 16 of the appeal are dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” 6. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. Ld. counsel appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the first appeal was decided ex-parte for want of prosecution, since Mr Ganpathi Sreedhar Kamath the counsel of the assessee trust, who was representing the tax matters of the assessee trust, expired & thereafter Swamijee HIS HOLINESS Param Pujya

5 ITA No.106/PAN/2025 Shreemad Vidhyadhiraj Teertha Shreepad Vader Swamijee, the head of the trust also took Samadhi (passed away). All the matters pertaining to taxation were known to the Late Chartered Accountant only and all the directions and decisions were taken by the Swamiji only, the absence of both the persons resulted in ex-parte order by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC & also in delayed filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal. Ld. AR submitted before us that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has mentioned in its order that the issue is decided on merits of the case, however, the addition of Rs.5 crores made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC only in two lines without discussing merits of the case. Accordingly, it was requested by Ld. AR to decide the appeal on merits of the case. 8. Ld. AR submitted before the bench that the assessee trust furnished its return of income u/s 139(1) of the IT Act, the audit report in Form 10B and other financial statements were also furnished within prescribed time limit, even Form 10 notice for accumulation of income was also furnished within the prescribed time limit and nothing adverse was found by the Assessing Officer against the assessee, except that specified purpose was not mentioned in Form 10 for which the accumulation was made u/s

6 ITA No.106/PAN/2025 11(2) of the IT Act. In this regard, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee trust already passed a Resolution dated 11-09-2017, which reads as under:- “an amount of Rs.5.00 crores be set apart for the expenses towards the objects of the Math consisting of promoting, imparting and supporting the advancement of educational activities.” 9. Ld. AR further submitted before the bench that the above resolution makes it clear that the accumulation was for promoting, imparting and supporting the advancement of educational activities. Ld. AR also drew our attention to the fact that the trust was allotted land by the Government of Goa for the purposes of achieving its objects. Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee trust has already started proceedings for construction of building for its educational institution and in this regard, referred page number no.101 of the paper book wherein letter dated 20.02.2020 was written to the Sarpanch Village Panchayat Madcai Ponda Goa to issue construction license for the prestigious project which will be also a prestigious development of the area. Apart from above, paper book page no.102 was also referred wherein letter dated 30.09.2020 was written to the Secretary, Village Panchayat Madcaim, Goa and

7 ITA No.106/PAN/2025 approved plans from Town Planner, Town and Country Planning Dept., Ponda, Goa, letter from Architect, appointed for the development certifying the estimate as well as copy of the certificate issued by the Registrar of Communidade of Marcaim, Ponda, Goa was supplied to the Secretary, Village Panchayat Madcaim, Goa. Ld. AR ultimately drew our attention to page no.100 of the paper book which is a letter dated 21.09.2020 written by the Government of Goa, Office of the Assistant Engineer, Sub- Div.III/W.D.XVI(BC), Public Works Department, Ponda, Goa to the Sarpanch, V.P. Marcaim, Ponda Taluka, wherein construction rate as per PWD Office Memorandum were certified at 3815m @ Rs.4700/m which comes to Rs.1,79,30,500/- of the compound wall proposed to be built by the assessee trust. Accordingly, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee trust has not only accumulated the funds but has also started the proceedings for construction of the building for its prestigious project. Learned AR also furnished written submission in support of its contentions, which reads as under :- 1. The appellant is a charitable trust involved in imparting education, promoting health and other social objectives. The appellant filed their ITR u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act’1961 on 24.09.2018 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The same was processed and the intimation u/s 143(1) of The Income Tax Act’1961 was issued.

8 ITA No.106/PAN/2025 2. The case was selected under CASS and notices u/s 143(2) and subsequent notice u/s 142(1) of the IT Act, were issued. 3. During the year the appellant has accumulated Rs.5.00 crores towards the object of the trust towards imparting education and the necessary documents were submitted to the AO during the scrutiny proceedings. 4. Without considering the submission and with bad intend, the AO passed the order u/s 143(3) of the IT Act, dated 03.02.2021, disallowing the accumulation of Rs.5.00 crores made by the appellant and added Rs.5.00 crores to the retuned income. 5. The appellant aggrieved by the AO order, filed appeal with CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), who dismissed the appeal of the appellant vide order u/s 250 of the IT Act, dated 07.08.2023 as non- prosecuted on merit, as the appellant did not receive the notices and there was no submissions made by the appellant. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Hon. CIT(A), the appellant has filed the present appeal. In this connection The Appellant wish to make following submissions for your kind consideration. 7. The appellant has filed their ITR for the AY 2018-19 as a trust on 24.09.2018. Copy of the ITR-7 filed along-with the acknowledgement and the financials are enclosed. Annex-1. 8. The appellant has duly filed the form 10 towards the accumulation of the funds. Copy of the form 10 is enclosed. Annex-2 9. The appellant has duly filed the audit report in form 10B of the Income Tax Act’1961. Copy of the form 10B is enclosed. Annex-3 10. The appellant trust was formed in year 2002 towards imparting education and promoting health, beside other social objectives. Copy of the trust deed is enclosed. Annex-4 11. The specific objectives for which the trust was formed are: i) To promote and support the advancement of education and educational activities of all sections of the society. ii) To found and maintain hospitals, medical investigations, medical research etc and for medical relief to the poor, the sick and the sufferings.

9 ITA No.106/PAN/2025 iii) To establish institutions and colleges for imparting education in medicine and other allied subjects. iv) To promote social welfare and strive to improve the quality of life of poor and the aged including setting up of orphanages and old peoples homes. v) To establish facilities for assisting and training of mentally and physically handicapped. vi) To Promote local languages, literature and culture of the local people and strive for the development of their linguistic personality in the multilingual country and to motivate them to work for promoting national integration and prosperity of the Country. 12. The appellant is duly registered u/s 12AA of The Income Tax Act’1961. The copy of the registration certificate is enclosed. Anex-5 13. As part of the object of the trust, the appellant had received donation for the specific purpose of setting up of the education institute for imparting education. 14. The said amount of Rs.5.00 crores, received towards the specific purpose was accumulated by the trust towards setting up of the educational institute atMadkaim, Goa.Details of which are as under. 14.1 The appellant has been allotted land atMadkaim, Goa towards setting up of the said educational institute. Copy of the land allotted for the project by Government of Goa is enclosed. Annex-6. 14.2 After due feasibility study and planning, the appellant applied for the permissions to the local authorities in year’2020. Copy of the application towards compound wall for the property is enclosed. Annex-7. 14.3 The project towards the building of the school was spread across years and the amount accumulated towards the same was to be incurred in a phase manner as such the donation received was accumulated during the current year and the necessary report in form 10 was filed noting that the amount is accumulated “Éxpenses towards object of the Math”. Copy of the form is enclosed as above. 14.4 The appellant has accumulated the funds to deploy the same as provided under the provision of section 11(2) of The Income Tax Act’1961 as noted below: Income from property held for charitable or religious purposes. 11 (2) Where eighty-five per cent of the income referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) read with the Explanation to that sub- section is not applied, or is not deemed to have been applied, to charitable or religious purposes in India during the previous year but is accumulated or set apart, either in whole or in part, for application

10 ITA No.106/PAN/2025 to such purposes in India, such income so accumulated or set apart shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income, provided the following conditions are complied with, namely:— [(a) such person furnishes a statement in the prescribed form and in the prescribed manner to the Assessing Officer, stating the purpose for which the income is being accumulated or set apart and the period for which the income is to be accumulated or set apart, which shall in no case exceed five years; (b) the money so accumulated or set apart is invested or deposited in the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5); (c) the statement referred to in clause (a) is furnished on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139 for furnishing the return of income for the previous year: Provided that in computing the period of five years referred to in clause (a), the period during which the income could not be applied for the purpose for which it is so accumulated or set apart, due to an order or injunction of any court, shall be excluded]. Explanation.—Any amount credited or paid, out of income referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1), read with the Explanation to that sub-section, which is not applied, but is accumulated or set apart, to any trust or institution registered under section 12AA or to any fund or institution or trust or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10, shall not be treated as application of income for charitable or religious purposes, either during the period of accumulation or thereafter. 14.5 As noted above, the appellant has accumulated the funds for the charitable purpose of setting up of the educational institute and have also duly filed the necessary form in that regard. 15. The AO has disallowed the accumulation of Rs.5.00 crores done by the appellant with the following noting at para 5.5 page 3 of his order which is reproduced herewith. “5.5 By theAssessee’s action to accumulate and utilize within five years for the general purposes of the Trust, the distinction between the provisions of section 11(1)(a) and 11(2) is lost. If the purpose of accumulation is not specific involving a project of heavy outlay which cannot be accomplished with the available funds for the year, the claim of exemption u/s.11(2) becomes incongruous. It is pertinent to highlight the word “Purposes” is used in plural form in section 11(1)(a) whereas it is “ Purpose” in singular in section 11(2). Although multiple

11 ITA No.106/PAN/2025 purposes can be allowed in section 11(2), the dissimilarity between “ Purposes” in sec 11(1)(a) and “ purpose” in sec 11(2) enforces a distinction in identifying the purpose amongst the various object of the Trust.” 15.1 The AO has termed the purpose of accumulation of the funds as general purpose of the trust, but has totally failed to understand that the trust has undertaken the project of setting up of the educational institute as per the main object of the trust, whereby it was to built the necessary infrastructure of buildings and other amenities as per the plan, which will take more than 5 years to complete. As such the said amount of Rs.5.00 crores was accumulated towards the main charitable object of the trust. 15.2 The AO has denied the accumulated amount as the appellant has merely stated that the amount is accumulated or set apart for ‘”Expenses towards object of the Math”’, which infact is towards the setting up of the educational institute which is the main object of the trust. 15.3 As noted above, the accumulation of the funds made by the appellant is for the specific and definite purpose of setting up of the educational complex, which involve heavy outlay over the period of the project. 15.4 The AO has noted number of judicial decisions of general- purpose accumulation of funds for justifying the addition, which are not applicable to the case as the accumulation of the funds done by the appellant of Rs.5.00 crores, is for the specific purpose of setting up of the educational institute. 15.5 As such the AO has ignored the specific purpose for which the funds are accumulated to deny the rightful allowance under the provision of the Income Tax Act,1961. 16. We rely upon the following judicial decisions in the matter.  The High Court of Delhi in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXVSHOTEL & RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION [TS-5210-HC- 2003(Delhi)-O], (2003) 182 CTR 0374, (2003) 261 ITR 0190, (2003) 132 TAXMAN 0076, held that “’We do not agree. It is true that specification of certain purpose or purposes is needed for accumulations of trust's income under s. 11(2) of the Act. At the same time the purpose or purposes to be specified cannot be beyond the objects of the trust. Plurality of the purposes for accumulation is not precluded but it depends on the precise purpose for which the accumulation is intended. In the present case, both the appellate authorities below have recorded a concurrent finding that the income was sought to be accumulated by the assessee to achieve the object for

12 ITA No.106/PAN/2025 which the assessee was incorporated. It is not the case of the Revenue that any of the objects of the assessee-company were not for charitable purpose. The aforenoted finding by the Tribunal is essentially a finding of fact giving rise to no question of law.”’  IN THE ITAT OF DELHI in the matter of NATIONAL CHILDRENS FUNDVSINCOME TAX OFFICER[TS-6296-ITAT-2024(Delhi)-O], (2024) 114 ITR 78 (Delhi)(Trib) it was noted by the tribunal that “We find the purpose for which the amount was claimed to be accumulated or set apart mentioned in the Form No. 10 of the AY 201617 "To be applied to promote and support research scientists for the advancement of research and development in future" as specific and categorical and thus, we are inclined to interfere with the finding of the CIT(A) in this regard. Accordingly, we order so and allow the appeal of the AY 2016-17 with the direction to the AO to allow the consequential benefit under section 11(2) of the Act to the appellant/assessee.’’  IN THE ITAT OF BANGALORE in the matter of DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) VS ENVISIONS [TS-5360-ITAT- 2009(Bangalore)-O], (2010) 134 TTJ 0083 (Bangalore)(UO) it was held that “’In overall consideration of the facts and the relevant case laws referred supra, we are of the considered view that the assessee trust is entitled to accumulation of income under s. 11(2) of the Act and, accordingly, we confirm the finding of the learned CIT(A) on this count. It is ordered accordingly.’’ 17. As such the appellant is duly eligible for the accumulation of the funds as per the provision of section 11(2) of The Income Tax Act’1961, as such the addition made by the ld AO by way of disallowance of the accumulation is out to be deleted. Sir the assesse will be highly obliged for taking these written submission on record and considering the same for the purpose of disposal of the appeal while upholding natural justice.” 10. On the basis of above submission, it was contended by Ld. counsel of the assessee that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is not justified. In this

13 ITA No.106/PAN/2025 regard, Ld. counsel of the assessee further placed reliance on various other case laws, which are as under :- (1) CIT v/s Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purshottam Public Cable Trust [TS-7250-HC-2018 (Gujarat)-0] (2) CIT v/s Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purshottam Public Cable Trust [TS-5113-SC-2019-0] (3) DIT v/s MITSUI & CO. ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST [TS-5183- HC-2007(Delhi)-0] (4) CIT v/s SMT. GODAVARIDEVI SARAF [TS-5423-HC- 1977(Bombay)-0] (5) U.P. CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION LTD. v/s INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [TS-5603- ITAT-1986(Allahabad)-0] (6) Kaybee Pvt Ltd v/s ITO Ward 10(1)(3), Mumbai [ITA No 2165/Mum/15] (7) CIT v/s SMT. NIRMALABAI K. DAREKAR [TS-5709-HC- 1988(Bombay)-0] (8) LAKSHMI PRECISION SCREWS LTD. v/s DCIT [TS-5142- ITAT-1996(Delhi)-0] (9) Sant Lal Gupta & Ors. v/s Modern Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. [Supreme Court] (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9439 OF 2003) (10) Rajasthan Public Service Commission... vs Harish Kumar Purohit And Ors [Supreme Court) (2003) 5 SCC 480 (11) CIT v/s L.G. RAMAMURTHI & ORS. [TS-5599-HC- 1976(Madras)-0] (12) SAYAJI IRON & ENGG. CO. v/s CIT [TS-5581-HC- 2001(Gujarat)-0] (13) ACIT v/s Avon Cycles Limited [TS-5436-ITAT- 2002(Chandigarh)-0] (14) N.R. PAPER & BOARD LTD. & ORS. v/s DCIT [TS-5282-HC- 1998(Gujarat)-0] (15) CIT v/s SUN ENGINEERING WORKS (P) LTD. [TS-16-SC- 1992-0]

14 ITA No.106/PAN/2025 11. Ld. AR also produced copy of case laws relied on by the Assessing Officer, which are as under :- (1) DIT (EXEMPTION) v/s TRUSTEES OF SINGHANIA CHARITABLE TRUST [TS-5724-HC-1991 (Calcutta)-0] (2) CIT v/s M.CT. MUTHIAH CHETTIAR FAMILY TRUST & ORS. [TS-5642-HC-1999(Madras)-0] 12. Accordingly, it was requested by Ld. AR of the assessee to allow the deduction of Rs.5 crores as claimed by the assessee u/s 11(2) of the IT Act. 13. On the other hand, Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue relied on the orders passed by subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same. 14. We have heard Ld. counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper books & written submission & copy of case laws furnished by the assessee. With regard to the disallowance of deduction of Rs.5 crores u/s 11(2) the IT Act by the Assessing Officer, we find that the deduction was denied merely on the ground of non-mentioning of specified purpose in Form 10. In this regard, we find that except above so called error, the Assessing Officer could not bring any adverse

15 ITA No.106/PAN/2025 material on record. The only defect which the Assessing Officer found was that the specified purpose was not mentioned in Form 10 for which the amount of Rs.5 crores was accumulated by the assessee trust. It was the contention of Ld. counsel of the assessee that the assessee trust has already passed a resolution on 11-09-2017 wherein it was resolved that an amount of Rs.5 crores be set apart for the expenses towards the objects of the Math consisting of promoting, imparting and supporting the advancement of educational activities and for this purpose the construction was started on the piece of land admeasuring an area of 1,99,650 square meter allotted to the assessee trust by Government of Goa. In this regard, further communication made by the assessee trust with the Secretary, Village Panchayat and also with the Public Works Department was produced before the Bench wherein the approved plan from Town Planner and Country Planning Department, Ponda, Goa was also discussed and even the cost of construction of the compound wall was got approved at the PWD certified rates. All these documents suggests that the assessee trust has already commenced its activity with regard to achieving its objects for the purposes of promoting, imparting and supporting the advancement

16 ITA No.106/PAN/2025 of educational activities for which the impugned amount of Rs.5 crores was accumulated or set apart. 15. In this regard, we find that the Assessing Officer placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Madras High Court passed in the case of CIT vs. MCT Muthiah Chettiar Family Trust (supra), however, we find that this case is related with section 11(3) of the IT Act, therefore, the same is not squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case in hand. The Assessing Officer also placed reliance on the judgement passed by Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Director of Income-tax (Exemption) vs. Trustees of Singhania Charitable Trust It Reference No.35 of 1991 order dated July 22, 1991, wherein under identical facts Hon’ble Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal to allow the assessee to adduce fresh evidence to support the contention that the accumulation was made for the specific purpose by observing as under in the last para of the judgement :- “We, therefore, answer question No. 2 in the negative and we decline to answer question No. 1. We remand the matter to the Tribunal and the Tribunal will allow the assessee to adduce fresh evidence whether in the form of any resolution or otherwise showing that the specific purpose for which the trust requires the accumulation of the income exists and, if such resolution or evidence is placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal will consider whether the obligation cast on the assessee

17 ITA No.106/PAN/2025 under section 11(2) has been discharged and the exemption, accordingly, may be granted to the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.” 16. From perusal of above judgement passed by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court (supra) which is also relied on by the Assessing Officer for denying the claim of deduction u/s 11(2) of the IT Act in the instant case in hand, it becomes crystal clear that Hon’ble High Court is of the view, that, if the Tribunal on the basis of evidences such as resolution passed by the assessee trust or on the basis of other evidences, comes to the conclusion that the specific purpose, for which the trust requires the accumulation of the income, exists, and the Tribunal is of the opinion that the obligation cast on the assessee u/s 11(2) has been discharged, then the exemption can be granted to the assessee. 17. On the basis of above case law passed by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the assessee trust has successfully demonstrated before us that the specific purpose for accumulation of funds of Rs.5 crores existed, since the assessee trust has already passed a resolution in this regard and was in the process of construction of building for the purposes

18 ITA No.106/PAN/2025 of providing, imparting and supporting of educational activities which is one of the object of the assessee trust. In view of our above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Assessing Officer denying deduction u/s 11(2) is not justified. 18. Apart from above judgement, we also find support from the judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Hotel & Restaurant Association (2003) 132 Taxman 76 (Delhi), (which is relied on by the assessee), wherein under identical facts Hon’ble Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue by observing as under :- “6. We have heard Mr. R.D. Jolly, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue. Mr. Jolly submits that the appellate authorities have failed to appreciate that in the prescribed form the assessee had failed to indicate the specific purpose for which the income was sought to be accumulated and therefore the statutory requirement had not been strictly complied with, disentitling the assessee from relief under section 11(2) of the Act. 7. We do not agree. It is true that specification of certain purpose or purposes is needed for accumulations of trust’s income under section 11(2) of the Act. At the same time the purpose or purposes to be specified cannot be beyond the objects of the trust. Plurality of the purposes for accumulation is not precluded but it depends on the precise purpose for which the accumulation is intended. In the present case, both the Appellate Authorities below have recorded a concurrent finding that the income was sought to be accumulated by the assessee to achieve the object for which the assessee was incorporated. It is not the case of the Revenue that any of the objects of the assessee-company were not for charitable purpose. The aforenoted finding by the

19 ITA No.106/PAN/2025 Tribunal is essentially a finding of fact giving rise to no question of law. 8. We, accordingly, decline to entertain the appeal. The same is dismissed.” 19. Apart from above, we also find support from the decision of coordinate bench of this Tribunal passed in the case of Prof. J.P. Trivedi Memorial Trust vs. ITO Exemption [2026] 185 taxmann.com 183 (Pune - Trib.) [27-03-2026] wherein the Tribunal by relying on the Judgement passed by Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of CIT (Exemptions) vs. Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purshottam Public Charitable Trust [2019] 102 taxmann.com 122 (Gujarat) (against which SLP was also dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court) held that non-specification of specific purpose for accumulation in Form 10 and delayed filing of Form 10 would not be fatal to the exemption u/s 11(2) of the Act by observing as under :- “6. On the proposition that non-mentioning of specific purpose for accumulation in Form 10B would not disentitle the assessee trust to claim exemption u/s 11(2) of the Act, the Ld. AR relied on the following cases : i. CIT (Exemptions) v. Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purshottam Public cable Trust [2019] 105 taxmann.com 97/263 Taxman 247 (SC); ii. CIT (Exemptions) v. Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purshottam Public Charitable Trust [2019] 102 taxmann.com 122/[2018] 409 ITR

20 ITA No.106/PAN/2025 591/[2019] 261 Taxman 229 (Gujarat); iii. DIT, Exemptions, Bangalore v. Envisions [2015] 58 taxmann.com 184/378 ITR 483/232 Taxman 164 (Karnataka); iv. Bharat Kalyan Pratisthan v. DIT (Exemption) [2007] 211 CTR 354/[2008] 299 ITR 406/[2007] 160 Taxman 216 (Delhi); v. DIT v. Mitsui & Co. Environmental Trust [2007] 211 CTR 352/[2008] 303 ITR 111/167 Taxman 43 (Delhi); vi. CIT v. Hotel & Restaurant Association [2003] 182 CTR 374/261 ITR 190/132 Taxman 76 (Delhi); vii. ITO v. Yogakshema Trust [2025] 173 taxmann.com 733/212 ITD 408 (Cochin - Trib.); viii. Dy. CIT (Exemption) v. State Institute of Health & Family Welfare 1 [2023] 153 taxmann.com 740/202 ITD 480 (Jaipur - Trib.) and ix. Arhatic Yoga Ashram Management Trust v. ITO (Exemptions) Ward - 1, Chennai [2021] 126 taxmann.com 76/188 ITD 14 (Chennai - Trib.). 7. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the order of the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 8. …….. 9. We find some force in the arguments advanced by the Ld. AR. We find that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purshottam Public Cable Trust (supra) under the similar set of facts as that of the assessee in the present case, has allowed the assessee's claim of exemption u/s 11(2) of the Act holding that non- specification of specific purpose for accumulation in Form 10 would not be fatal to the exemption u/s 11(2) of the Act. We further observe that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP filed by the Department in the above case (reported in (2019) 263 Taxman 247 (SC)) upholding the findings of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. This view has also been upheld by various decisions of the Hon'ble Courts/Tribunals (supra) cited by the Ld. AR. 10. ……… 11. ………

21 ITA No.106/PAN/2025 12. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and legal position enumerated above, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and direct the Ld. AO to allow the assessee's claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 20. Considering the totality of the facts of the case & respectfully following the judgement passed by Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Director of Income-tax (Exemption) vs. Trustees of Singhania Charitable Trust (supra), Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT (Exemptions) v. Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purshottam Public Charitable Trust (supra) [which is relied on by coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Prof. J.P. Trivedi Memorial Trust (supra)] and also the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court passed in the case of CIT vs. Hotel & Restaurant Association (supra), we find force in the arguments of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the specific purpose for accumulation of funds of Rs.5 crores existed, since the assessee trust has already passed a resolution in this regard and was in the process of construction of building on the land allotted by Government of Goa for the purposes of providing, imparting and supporting of educational activities which is one of the object of the assessee trust.

22 ITA No.106/PAN/2025 Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC & direct the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction of Rs.5 crores u/s 11(2) of the IT Act claimed by the assessee trust. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 21. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 21st day of September, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune / Dated : 21st September, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.09.21 15:18:59 आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : +05'30' अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. DR, ITAT, Panaji. 4. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.