BETHSAIDA WOMEN DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,TRIVANDRUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION WARD) TRIVANDRUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) is directed to specifically examine the applicability of Section 12A(ba), which was not previously discussed, and to consider the Supreme Court judgment in Wipro, providing the assessee a meaningful opportunity.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a religious institution with Section 12A approval, deposited Rs. 7,85,500 during the demonetization period. Its Income Tax Return for AY 2017-18 was filed belatedly, leading the AO to disallow Section 12A benefits and tax the deposit at Maximum Marginal Rate, a decision upheld by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee is entitled to benefits under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act despite filing a belated return, and the correct applicability of clause (ba) of Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- PCIT v. Wipro Ltd.192 citing446 ITR 1 · 2022 · SC
- Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham v. CIT76 citing459 ITR 730 · 2023 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH:COCHIN
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV
Date of Hearing : 29.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025 O R D E R PERPRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 22.2.2025 having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073595898(1) and relates to the AY 2017-18.
Brief facts of the case as coming out from the orders of authorities below are that the assessee is a religious institution and has been granted approval u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) from the office of Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Trivandrum. During the impugned year, the assessee has deposited an amount of Rs.7,85,500/- during the period of demonetization. By observing this, the case of the assessee has been picked up for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has not filed any Bethsaida Women Development Societey, Trivandrum Page 2 of 3 return of income for the impugned assessment yar. The AO further observed that the return of income filed by the assessee on 27.4.2018 is a belated return and assessee cannot claim the benefits of section 12A of the Act. Thereafter, the AO taxed the entire deposits by applying Maximum Marginal Rate under the head “income from other sources”.
Aggrieved with the order of AO, assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and argued that for the impugned year, it was not mandatory to file the income tax return for claiming benefits u/s 11 & 12 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) relying upon the judgement of Nileshwar reported in 459 ITR 730 (Kerala) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Counsel for the assessee appearing on behalf of the assessee argued that amendment made in section 12A of the Act in clause (ba) is prospective in nature and could not be applied to the present case.
Ld. D.R. relied upon the orders of the authorities below.\
After considering the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on record, it is observed that time limit to file a valid return in terms of the provisions of section 139 of the Act has been increased by the CBDT( Circular Number-3 of 2017 dated 20.01.2017) upto 31.3.2018. However, the assessee in this case before us, has filed the return of income on 27.4.2018, which is beyond the time limit as extended by the CBDT. Perusal of the order of ld. CIT(A) would show that the ld. CIT(A) has not at all discussed about the applicability of clause (ba) of section 12A of the Act. Therefore, we remit this matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh in accordance with law. The ld. CIT(A) will also Bethsaida Women Development Societey, Trivandrum Page 3 of 3 consider the judgement of Wipro rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 446 ITR 1. With these observations, we remit this matter to the file of ld. CIT(A).
Needless to say, that ld. CIT(A) will grant meaningful opportunity to the assessee before passing any order.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd June, 2025
More judgments on Section 12A
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sanskardham Nandan, Mehsana vs CIT(Exemption), AhmedabadITA 2980/AHD/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 777/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 776/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Shiva Shiksha Samiti, Deendayal Puram, Up… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Agra…ITA 415/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026