LIONS CLUB CARE FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST ,SANGLI vs. ITO (E) , KOLHAPUR

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (NFAC) [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) for AY 2018-19 on 30.12.2025, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act, dated 10.03.2021.

ITA No.804/PUN/2026

1.4 The AO may be directed to allow the claim of depreciation of Rs. 25,76,724/- as application of Income. 2.1 The Learned CIT (A) erred in confirming disallowance the claim for accumulation of Income of Rs. 42,41,680/ on the ground that the Form No. 10 is filed beyond the original due date for filing the said Form. 2.2 The Learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the extension of date for filing Return of Income u/s 139(1) automatically extends the date for filing Form No. 10. 2.3 The AO may be directed to allow the claim of accumulation of Income Rs. 42,41,680/-. 3.0 The Assessee reserves the right to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the grounds of the Appeal.”

ITA No.804/PUN/2026

that Form No. 10 was filed on 03.10.2018 which according to the Assessing Officer, is after the due date for filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. However, it is observed that for AY 2018-19 the due date for filing the return of income was extended by Central Board of Direct Taxes to 08.10.2018. Thus, the assessee had filed Form No. 10 within the extended period. In these facts, we are of the considered opinion Form No. 10 filed by the assessee was within the time allowed under statute. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to treat the Form No. 10 as filed within the time and accordingly allow benefit of claim u/s 11 of the Act.

4.1 In this case, the assessee had claimed depreciation of Rs.25,76,724/- as application of income. The Assessing Officer disallowed the assessee this claim on the ground that the assessee had not filed evidence to prove that the capital expenditure incurred by the assessee for acquiring the assets were not claimed as application of income. In this case it is a fact that the assessee had not filed the details to prove that the capital expenditure was not claimed as application of income. However, the Ld. AR invited our attention to page Nos. 127-128 of the paper book which was statement of depreciation and the Ld. AR submitted that during the year the assessee had purchased assets more than Rs.39 lacs and the assessee had not claimed this capital expenditure as application of income which is evident from the computation of income. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has not allowed depreciation on this newly purchased assets and the Assessing Officer has also not allowed capital expenditure as application of income. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer needs to allow either the assessee‟s claim of depreciation or the capital expenditure incurred during the year as application of income. The Ld. AR submitted that the capital expenditure incurred during the year is more than depreciation claimed by the assessee. We have studied the facts and it is observed that the assessee had claimed depreciation expenditure but the Assessing Officer disallowed it on the ground that the assessee failed to prove that the assessee has not claimed capital expenditure as application of income. In this case, the Ld. AR demonstrated before us that the assessee had not claimed capital expenditure as application of income which is allowed in the case of trust.

ITA No.804/PUN/2026

The Ld. DR had not objected to these facts. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow assessee‟s claim of depreciation.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th June, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 29-06-2026 Digitally signed by Ravi Kumar Ravi Kumar Ravi Kumar Date: 2026.06.30 15:49:45 +05'30' आदेशकीप्रतितितिअग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी/ The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/ The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, „A‟ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्डफ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकरअपीलीयअदिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune