GURU NANAK MISSION TRUST,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad
BEFORE SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.974/Hyd/2024
(निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19)
Guru Nanak Mission Trust,
Hyderabad.
PAN:AABTG0502G
Vs.
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-Exemption,
Circle 1(1), Hyderabad.
(Appellant)
(Respondent)
निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri Mohd. Fakhruddin, C.A.
रधजस्व द्वधरध/Revenue by:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, SR-DR
सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing:
30/01/2025
घोर्णध की
तधरीख/Pronouncement:
13/02/2025
आदेश/ORDER
PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.:
This appeal is filed by Guru Nanak Mission Trust (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated
31.07.2024 for the A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds :
“1. The order of learned Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals
(appeals) is contrary to law and facts and circumstances to the case.
2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax erred in not appreciating the fact that the learned assessing officer erred in ITA Nos.974/Hyd/2024 2
adding a sum of Rs.59,79,270 towards disallowance under section 11(2) of the Income-tax Act on the facts and circumstance of the case.
3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax erred in not appreciating the fact that the entire sum of Rs.99,79,270 stood invested in securities listed under section 11 (5) of the Income-tax
Act on the facts and circumstance of the case.
4. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax erred in not accepting that the amount clearly shown in the balance sheet under fixed deposits with Punjab National Bank as evidence of having invested the accumulated amount in securities listed under section 11(5) of the Income-tax Act on the facts and circumstance of the case.
5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax erred in not appreciating the fact that the balance sheet, duly audited, was accepted for the purpose of the appellant's assessment on the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax erred in confirming the addition merely because the appellant did not submit any document or bank account copy relating to the term deposits with Punjab National Bank on the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. The Commissioner of Income-tax erred in not appreciating the fact that the appellant was under honest impression that filing of the balance sheet which clearly showed the fixed deposit with Punjab National Bank and which is also accepted for the purpose of assessment was sufficient evidence for investment and its was not necessary to file copies of the actual deposit receipts on the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. The appellant craves leaves to add to, alter or amend any of the aforesaid grounds as advised on or before the date hearing.”
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust, filed its Return of Income (“ROI”) on 13.09.2018 declaring total income at Rs.Nil after claiming
ITA Nos.974/Hyd/2024 3
exemption u/s.11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') for Rs.1,39,27,871/-.
The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and accordingly, notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 23.09.2019. During the assessment proceedings, the Learned Assessing Officer
(“Ld. AO”) found that the assessee has accumulated Rs.99,79,270/- u/s.11(2) of the Act and therefore, the assessee was required to invest the amount of Rs.99,79,270/- in the mode specified u/s.11(5) of the Act. Before the Ld. AO, the assessee could not produce evidence in support of investment of Rs.59,79,270/- towards the investment made under the more specified u/s.11(5) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. AO added Rs.59,79,270/- to the total income of the assessee and completed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act on 26.04.2021. 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, before the Ld. CIT(A) also, the assessee could not produce the said evidences with regard to Rs.59,79,270/-. Accordingly, the Ld.
CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that, the assessee had submitted the copy of audited balance sheet before the revenue authority, wherein investment of Rs.2.09 Crores in FDRs were reflected, which is covered under the specified mode prescribed u/s.11(5) of the Act. The assessee was under the bona fide belief that the submission of audited balance sheet is sufficient to substantiate the amount of deposit in FDRs. Therefore, the assessee could not produce the copy of bank FDRs before the revenue authority. There was no mala fide intention on the part of the assessee qua not filing of copy of FDRs before the revenue authority.
ITA Nos.974/Hyd/2024 4
1 The Ld. AR filed the copy of bank FDR before us as additional evidence with a request to accept the same. The Ld. AR further submitted before the bench that, the assessee has deposited Rs.2,35,00,052/- in FDR, however, he was only required to deposit an amount of Rs.99,79,270/-. Accordingly, the assessee has deposited more than the amount required to be deposited under the mode specified u/s.11(5) of the Act. Finally, the Ld. AR prayed before the bench to allow their appeal. 6. The Learned Department Representative (“Ld. DR”) made objection for allowability of the appeal of the assessee and submitted that, the assessee has been given sufficient opportunity by the Revenue Authority to file the evidence. However, the assessee could not file the evidence before the revenue authority. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made by either side. There is no dispute about the fact that the assessee was required to deposit Rs.99,79,270/- in the mode specified u/s.11(5) of the Act. As submitted by the Ld. AR, the assessee has deposited Rs.23,50,00,52/- as against the amount of Rs.99,79,270/- required to be deposited. However, under the bona fide belief, the assessee could not produce the evidence in support of such deposit in FDR before the revenue authority. Now the assessee has produced the copy of bank FDR before us with a request to accept the same as additional evidence. In the interest of justice, we accept the additional evidence submitted by the assessee. However, the additional evidence submitted by the assessee has not been verified at the end of the Ld. AO. Therefore, we deem it proper to remand the issue to the file of Ld. AO. Accordingly, we set aside the issue to the file of the Ld. AO with a direction to verify the copy of FDR and allow the claim of the ITA Nos.974/Hyd/2024 5
assessee in accordance with law. Needless to say, the Ld. AO shall provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing order. Appeal of the assessee is disposed off accordingly.
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 13th Feb., 2025. (K. NARASIMHA CHARY)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Hyderabad.
Dated: 13.02.2025. * Reddy gp
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
Guru Nanak Mission Trust, 5-9-22/2, Hill Fort Road, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad-500022 2. DCIT-Exemption, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. 3. Pr.CIT, Hyderabad. 4. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 5. Guard file.
BY ORDER,