MOTA GOPNATH MAHANJ NI JAGYA,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 576/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 June 2026AY 2011-126 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the return filed in response to the notice under Section 148 was a valid return. It also found that the assessee was eligible for exemption under Section 11 and 12, directing the AO to allow the deduction after verification.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a trust registered under Section 12A, did not file its original return of income for AY 2011-12. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case and made additions, denying exemption under Section 11. The CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the return filed in response to a notice under Section 148 is a valid return for claiming exemption under Section 11, and whether the assessee trust is eligible for exemption under Section 11 and 12.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 148,Section 139(4),Section 11,Section 12A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Popat, AR
For Respondent: Shri Abhijit, SR-DR
Hearing: 12.05.2026Pronounced: 19.06.2026

PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 30.12.2025 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12 in the proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred as “The Act”].

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assesse did not file its return of income for A.Y. 2011-12. The AO had received information regarding cash deposit in the bank account as well as investment in fixed deposits by the assessee, during the year. On the basis of this information, the

ITA No.576/Ahd/2026 Mota Gopnath Mahanj Ni Jagya Vs DCIT, AY- 2011-12 2

case of the assessee was reopened by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 23.08.2018. The assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 17.12.2018 at total income of Rs.68,94,910/-.

3.

Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee had filed an appeal before the first appellate authority, which was decided by the learned CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. Th

4.

Now the assessee is in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal:

1.

Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in passing the impugned order without giving proper attention on documents submitted/available with Income Tax Portal like ITRs, Forms. 2. Learned CIT(E) erred in law and on facts in assessing the total income of the trust at Rs. 68,94,910/- instead of returned income of Rs.44,492/-. 3. Learned CIT(E) erred in law and on facts in not allowing the exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 despite the fact that the appellant trust is registered with the Department u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Learned CIT(E) further erred in making addition of Rs. 24,08,041/-being donation received in dan-petti to the total income as unexplained and unaccounted income. 5. Learned CIT(E) further erred in making addition of Rs. 44,86,864/-as unaccounted investment to the total income. 6. Your appellant may be allowed to add, amend, alter or raise additional grounds of appeal.

5.

Shri Bharat Popat, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee is a government trust registered with the Office of the Charity Commissioner since 20.04.1965. The Trust was also registered u/s. 12A of the Act on 27.01.1975. The assessee had accumulation of funds which

ITA No.576/Ahd/2026 Mota Gopnath Mahanj Ni Jagya Vs DCIT, AY- 2011-12 3 was invested in Kisan Vikas Patra (KVP) in past. Further, the assessee had received cash donations which were deposited in the bank account. During the year, the KVP had matured and the assessee had received an amount of Rs.30,00,000/-. This maturity proceeds along with surplus balance aggregating to Rs. 38,00,000/- was invested in the form of fixed deposits (FD). The Ld. AR submitted that the AO had wrongly treated the cash deposits and the investment in FD as unexplained, disregarding the explanation of the assessee. He further submitted that the AO was also not correct in denying the exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act, by treating the assessee as a non-filer. He explained that the Ld. CIT(A) had held that the return filed by the assessee u/s. 148 of the Act was a belated return u/s. 139(4) of the Act and, therefore, the assessee was eligible for deduction u/s. 11 of the Act. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee was duly registered u/s. 12A of the Act and this fact was acknowledged by the Department in the assessment order for A.Y. 2012- 13. Further, the Ld. ITAT Rajkot in the order in ITA No. 2019 to 2021/Ahd/1996 dated 21.10.2003, had also held that the assessee trust enjoyed the benefit of sections 11 and 12 of the Act.

6.

Per Contra, Shri Abhijit, the Ld. SR-DR, supported the order of the lower authorities. He submitted that the assessee was a non-filer and also did not file the return of income u/s. 148 of the Act within the time period allowed to the assessee. Further, the copy of the registration u/s. 12A of the Act was also not brought on record before the AO in the course of assessment proceedings. Regarding the cash deposits, the Ld. SR-DR submitted that the assessee was unable to bring on record any evidence that the investment was made out of maturity proceeds of KVPs acquired

ITA No.576/Ahd/2026 Mota Gopnath Mahanj Ni Jagya Vs DCIT, AY- 2011-12 4 in the past. He, therefore, strongly supported the order of the lower authorities.

7.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The first grievance of the assessee is against not allowing the deduction u/s 11 of the Act. The AO had denied the claim by treating the assessee as a non- filer. Though the assessee did not file the original return u/s. 139(1) of the Act, the assessee had filed a return in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. On the validity of this return, the Ld. CIT(A) had given the following finding:

As the case of the appellant relates to A.Y. 2011-12, and the third proviso which clarifies the ambiguity being effective from 01.04.2023, and further no mention of the amendment being retrospective in nature, it is held that the old provision of section 148(1) will be applicable in the instant case. Accordingly, the return filed in response to section 148 will be deemed as return filed u/s. 139, irrespective of the expiry of the period specified in the notice u/s. 148. Further, it is held that a return filed beyond 30 days in response to notice issued u/s 148 can at the most be designated as a belated return filed u/s. 139(4).

5.3.2. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the return filed on 13.12.2018 is held to be return filed u/s. 139. Ground of appeal 2 is hereby allowed.

The Ld. CIT(A) has thus held that return filed by the assessee in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 13.12.2018, was a valid return filed u/s. 139(4) of the Act. This fact has not been controverted by the Revenue. The Ld. CIT(A) had, however, denied the claim for deduction u/s. 11 of the Act, in the absence of any documentary proof for registration of the Trust u/s. 12A of the Act. The assessee has brought on record a copy of

ITA No.576/Ahd/2026 Mota Gopnath Mahanj Ni Jagya Vs DCIT, AY- 2011-12 5 the assessment order for A.Y. 2012-13, wherein the AO had recorded that “The trust is registered u/s. 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide Registration No. HQ.111/32CB-8/73 dated 27.01.1975”. In fact, no adverse view was taken by the Department in the A.Y. 2012-13 and the Nil return of income field by the assessee was accepted. Thus, when the deduction u/s. 11 and 12 of the Act was duly allowed to the assessee in the subsequent A.Y.2012-13, the Department was not correct in denying this deduction in the current A.Y. 2011-12. The assessee is a very old trust registered u/s. 12A of the Act since 27.01.1975. The fact that the trust was eligible for deduction u/s. 11 and 12 of the Act, was also acknowledged in the order of Co-ordinate bench of Rajkot Tribunal for A.Y 1986-87, 1987-88, and 1988-89. Since the assessee did have a valid registration u/s 12A of the Act, the matter is set aside to the file of the AO with a direction to allow the deduction u/s. 11 and 12 of the Act as per law, after verifying the satisfaction of other conditions under those sections. The ground taken by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

8.

The other grounds taken by the assessee in respect of addition of cash deposit and unaccounted investment in fixed deposit have become infructuous, in view of our direction that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s. 11 and 12 of the Act. Therefore, we do not deem it necessary to adjudicate these grounds at this stage. Further, since the matter has been set aside to the file of AO to consider the deduction u/s. 11 and 12 of the Act, the assessee will be free to produce the evidences in respect of cash deposit and unaccounted investment in fixed deposits, if so required by the AO. The grounds are deemed to be allowed for statistical purpose.

ITA No.576/Ahd/2026 Mota Gopnath Mahanj Ni Jagya Vs DCIT, AY- 2011-12 6

9.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the Court on 19/06/2026 at Ahmedabad.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY GARG) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated – 19th June, 2026 Neelesh, Sr. PS (True Copy) आदेश आदेश क� आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अ�ेिषत 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण / DR, ITAT, 6. गाड� फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) उप उप/सहायक उप उप सहायक सहायक पंजीकार सहायक पंजीकार पंजीकार आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद अिधकरण अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad अहमदाबाद

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →