GAU RAKSHA SEVA SAMITI,HARYANA vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS WARD ROHTAK, HARYANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2438/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 August 2026AY 2016-178 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the substantive claim regarding the nature and utilization of the amount required factual verification. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

What were the facts?

The assessee inadvertently reported an accumulated amount of Rs. 8,96,584/- under Section 11(1B) of the IT Act in its return. The assessee claimed this amount was accumulated in the preceding year and utilized during the current year, with Form No. 10 filed accordingly.

What were the issues?

Whether an inadvertent clerical error in reporting an accumulated amount in the return can be rectified under Section 154, and if the accumulated amount was indeed utilized for charitable purposes as claimed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 11(1B),Section 11(2),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Hearing: 06.07.2026Pronounced: 31.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member & Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member ITA No. 2438/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2016-17 Gau Raksha Seva Samiti, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/o Bansivat Mandir, Umedpura, Exemptions Ward, B.O. Ahmedpur, Sirsa, Rohtak, Haryana-125055 Haryana-124001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABTG1120C Assessee by: Sh. Shruti Khandelwal, Adv. Revenue by: Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 06.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 31.08.2026 ORDER Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member: The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.11.2025 of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) wherein the appeal has been dismissed, against the rectification order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 154 of the Act dated 06.01.2020.

2.

The assessee has filed an applicationseeking condonation of delay of 35 days in filing the present appeal. The contents of the application are reproduced as under:

2 ITA No. 2438/Del/2026 Gau Raksha Seva Samiti

3 ITA No. 2438/Del/2026 Gau Raksha Seva Samiti

3.

We have considered the contents of the condonation application and the submissions made by the ld. AR. We find that the assessee has satisfactorily explained the reasons for the delay. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji

4 ITA No. 2438/Del/2026 Gau Raksha Seva Samiti & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), wherein it has been held that a liberal approach should be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay to substantial justice, we are satisfied that the assessee has shown sufficient cause. Accordingly, the delay of 35 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.

4.

Facts of the case as culled out from the orders of the authorities below are that the assessee filed its return of income on 25.07.2016 declaring total income at Nil. The said return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and demand of Rs.1,29,680/- was raised. Thereafter, the assessee filed an application u/s 154 stating that an amount of Rs.8,96,584/- had been inadvertently reported in the return u/s 11(1B) of the Act, whereas the said amount represented the amount accumulated in the preceding year pursuant to Form No. 10 and utilized during the year under consideration. The rectification application was rejected by the Assessing Officer.During the appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that during F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to A.Y. 2015-16, it had filed Form No. 10 in respect of Rs.8,96,584/- for specific purposes and that the said amount was utilized during F.Y. 2015-16 relevant to A.Y. 2016-17. It was further submitted that due to an inadvertent clerical mistake on the part of the

5 ITA No. 2438/Del/2026 Gau Raksha Seva Samiti staff of the counsel, the amount was wrongly reported u/s 11(1B) while filing the return. The assessee also furnished its financial statements and computation and claimed that during the year.

5.

Aggrieved by the rectification order u/s 154, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee observing that the return is a statutory document and the assessee is responsible for the correctness of the particulars furnished therein. It was further observed that the mistake in the return itself could not be regarded as a mistake apparent from the record amenable to rectification u/s 154 of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

6.

Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A), in Appeal No. NFAC/2018- 19/10376212 has erred in passing order dtd. 10.10.2025 in contravention of provisions of S. 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as “Act”). 2. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the rejection of rectification u/s 154. 3. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in failing to appreciate that the sum of Rs. 8,96,584/- came to be reflected in ITR u/s 11(1B) solely on account of an inadvertent and clerical misreporting, whereas in its true legal character and substance the said amount represented application of income validly

6 ITA No. 2438/Del/2026 Gau Raksha Seva Samiti accumulated in the preceding year pursuant to a duly and timely filed Form No. 10 in accordance with s. 11(2) of the Act. 4. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in treating the inadvertent reporting u/s 11(1B) as taxable income despite the undisputed fact that the accumulated amount was duly applied for charitable purposes during the year and no real income accrued to the appellant. 5. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in upholding the adjustment made by Ld. AO during processing/ rectification proceedings u/s 143(1) / 154, which is beyond the scope of those sections. 6. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the order passed by the Ld. AO and then by Worthy CIT(A) deserves to be quashed since the same have been framed in extreme haste and without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.” 7. We have heard the ld. AR and the ld. DR. The ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the issue has not been examined on its correct factual and legal perspective. It was submitted that the amount of Rs.8,96,584/- was not a fresh income of the assessee for the year under consideration, but was an amount accumulated in the preceding year after filing Form No. 10 and was actually utilized for the specified charitable purposes during the year under consideration. It was further submitted that the incorrect disclosure in the return was only an inadvertent clerical error.

8.

The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of the lower authorities.

7 ITA No. 2438/Del/2026 Gau Raksha Seva Samiti 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.It is an admitted fact that the assessee had claimed before the lower authorities that an amount of Rs.8,96,584/- was accumulated in the preceding year and that Form No. 10 had been filed in respect thereof. The assessee has further claimed that the said amount was utilized during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer, in the remand report, has primarily rejected the claim on the ground that the amount was declared by the assessee itself u/s 11(1B) in the return and that the mistake was not apparent from the record.In our considered view, the issue in dispute in the present appeal requires examination of the actual facts relating to accumulation and utilization of the amount of Rs.8,96,584/-. The assessee has claimed that Form No. 10 was filed in the preceding year and the amount accumulated thereunder was utilized during the year under consideration. The assessee has also relied upon its accounts and computation of application of income. Therefore, merely because the amount was inadvertently reflected in a particular column of the return, the substantive claim of the assessee regarding the nature and utilization of the said amount, particularly when the assessee claims that the relevant Form No. 10 and financial records were available, requires proper factual verification.

8 ITA No. 2438/Del/2026 Gau Raksha Seva Samiti 10. Hence, in the interest of substantial justice and for proper adjudication of the issue in dispute, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The Assessing Officer shall examine the claim of the assessee regarding Rs.8,96,584/- after verifying the Form No. 10 filed for A.Y. 2015-16, the relevant books of account, audited financial statements, bank statements and such other documents as may be furnished by the assessee. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer shall decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after affording reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

11.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 31/08/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (S. Rifaur Rahman) (Raj Kumar Chauhan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 31/08/2026 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →