KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal agreed that the investment violated Section 11(5). However, it ruled that the lower authorities were not justified in disallowing the *entire* investment amount, as it was not made in the relevant assessment year. The addition should be limited to the income generated from this investment during the assessment year 2013-14, citing a precedent.
What were the facts?
The appellant, Kerala State Co-op. Employees Pension Board, registered under Section 10(23AAA), did not file a return for AY 2013-14. The ACIT initiated reassessment under Section 148 and brought to tax an FD of Rs. 2,05,50,854/- with Kerala State Co-Operative Hospital Complex, alleging it was not a specified investment under Section 11(5). This investment originated in 1996 and had accumulated to the said amount by 2018. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's addition.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in disallowing the entire investment amount for violation of Section 11(5) or if the disallowance should be limited only to the income generated from such investment during the relevant assessment year.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 10(23AAA),Section 148,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 11(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.
- Interference Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Ksrtc Employees Death5 citing225 Taxmann 113 · 2014 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VP & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM
O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [(CIT(A)] dated 27.01.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a statutory pension board established u/s. 80A of the Kerala State Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. It is founded for the purpose of administering the pension fund which have the sole purpose to provide annuities for employees of co-operative society in Kerala State on their Kerala State Co-op. Employees Pension Board retirement at or after a specified age or on their becoming incapacitated prior to such retirement or for the widows, children or dependents of persons who are or have been such employees on the death of those persons. The appellant was duly registered u/s. 10(23AAA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). No regular return of income for AY 2013-14 was filed by the appellant. In the circumstances, the ACIT (Exemptions), Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter called "the AO") issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 31.03.2021 after recording the reason that income escaped assessment to tax. In response to notice u/s. 148, the appellant filed return of income on 23.04.2021 declaring Nil income. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the AO vide order dated 26.03.2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. While doing so, the AO brought to tax value of FD of Rs. 2,05,50.854/- made with Kerala State Co-Operative Hospital Complex and Centre for Advanced Medical Services Ltd. by holding that it is not one of the specified investments u/s. 11(5) of the Act. Accordingly, made addition of the same.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.
The learned counsel for the assessee submitted before us that the appellant made fixed deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- with Kerala State Kerala State Co-op. Employees Pension Board Co-Operative Hospital Complex and Centre for Advanced Medical Services Ltd. during 1996 in compliance of the directions of Government of Kerala. Subsequently in the year 2005 the Board has decided to convert the investment of Rs. 1 crore as share capital out of the accumulated amount of Rs. 1,75,58,358/- and the balance amount of Rs. 75,58,358/- is reinvested as fixed deposit on 01.06.2005 for a period of 3 years. This amount was accumulated to Rs. 2,05,50,854/- as on 01.06.2018. Thus, he submitted that the AO was not justified in taking the amount deposited on 01.06.2018 of Rs. 2,05,50,854/- for AY 2013-14. He further submits that even assuming for a moment that the deposit with Kerala State Co- Operative Hospital Complex and Centre for Advanced Medical Services Ltd. is in violation of the modes specified u/s. 11(5) of the Act, how the annual interest income accrued during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration alone is to be disallowed, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. KSRTC Employees Death-Cum-Retirement Benefit Fund [2014] 225 Taxman 113.
On the other hand, placing reliance on the orders of the lower authorities, the learned Sr. DR submits that no interference is called for.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The issue that arises for our consideration is whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the action of the AO of disallowing the entire amount of investment of Rs. 2,05,50,854/- Kerala State Co-op. Employees Pension Board though the investment was in contravention to provisions of section 11(5) of the Act. Admittedly the Board has obtained necessary approval u/s. 10(23AAA) of the Act.
(23AAA) any income received by any person on behalf of a fund established, for such purposes as may be notified by the Board in the Official Gazette, for the welfare of employees or their dependants and of which fund such employees are members if such fund fulfils the following conditions, namely:— (a) the fund— (i) applies its income or accumulates it for application, wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is established; and ii. invests its funds and contributions and other sums received by it in the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11; (b) the fund is approved by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in accordance with the rules made in this behalf: Provided that any such approval shall at any one time have effect for such assessment year or years not exceeding three assessment years as may be specified in the order of approval;
In the facts of the present case there was no dispute about the factum that the deposit made by the appellant with the Kerala State Co-Operative Hospital Complex and Centre for Advanced Medical Services Ltd. is in violation of the modes of investment prescribed u/s. 11(5) of the Act. However, the lower authorities were not justified in denying exemption to the extent of entire investment of Rs. 2,05,50,584/- for the reason that the entire investment of Rs. Kerala State Co-op. Employees Pension Board 2,05,50,584/- was not made during the year. Therefore the AO was justified in making addition to the extent of income generated on the investment during the year under consideration in view of the decision in the case of KSRTC Employees Death-Cum-Retirement Benefit Fund (supra).
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16th May, 2025.
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Satyavan vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 4 Nov 2026
- Deepak Kumar Daiya vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 4 Nov 2026
- Mohammed Fazil vs. State Of ChhattisgarhChhattisgarh · 4 Nov 2026
- Tvl. Devaerakkam Mercy Mary vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 4 Nov 2026
- Procter And Gamble Health LTD vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 4 Nov 2026