IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Ganapati Devasthan Trust DCIT Siddheshwar Galli, Baramati, Vs. (Exemption Circle), Maharashtra – 413102 Pune PAN: AANTS4193D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sharad A Vaze Department by : Shri Ambarnath Bhimrao Khule (through virtual)

Date of hearing : 03-03-2025 Date of pronouncement : 20-03-2025

O R D E R

PER R. K. PANDA, VP :

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated

30.08.2024 of the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A)-2, Noida relating to assessment year 2015-

16.

2. Facts of the case in brief, are that the assessee is a trust registered u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). It filed its return of income on 24.07.2019 declaring total income at Nil. The case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act on 22.03.2019 recording reasons after obtaining the necessary approval. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 22.03.2019 was duly served on the assessee. In response to the same, the assessee filed its return of income on 24.07.2019 declaring total income of Rs.14,27,898/-. From the details furnished by the assessee the Assessing Officer noted that out of gross receipt of Rs.28,59,33,370/-, the assessee had accumulated amount of Rs.24 crores u/s 11(2)

for which Form 10 has been field on 31.03.2016.

3. During the course of assessment proceedings he noted that the assessee took the plea that since it had invested an amount of Rs.24 crores in FDs for more than six months, the assessee had made investment in capital asset and hence, the assessee should be given benefit of section 11(1A) of the Act to the extent of Rs.24 crores. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the plea on the ground that the assessee had not taken this stand either in the original return or in return filed u/s 148 of the Act. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), he noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision has held that the additional claim cannot be made before the Assessing Officer as there is no provision under the Income Tax Act to make amendment in the return without filing a revised return. He, therefore, rejected the fresh claim made by the assessee without filing the revised return. He further noted that the proceedings u/s 148 of the Act are not for the benefit of the assessee and the assessee cannot make a fresh claim of exemption / deduction during the course of re-assessment proceedings when the said claim was not made in its original return of income. He accordingly rejected the claim of exemption u/s 11(1A) of the Act on the amount of Rs.24 crores being the investment made in the FDs out of the sale of land. The Assessing Officer however, allowed the benefit of accumulation u/s 11(2) on the amount of Rs.24 crores.

4. In appeal, the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A) rejected the exemption claimed u/s 11(1A)

of the Act by observing as under:

“1. Ground 1: Exemption under Section 11(1A)

The exemption under Section 11(1A) applies to capital gains reinvested in another capital asset According to CBDT Circular No. 883 and various court rulings, including CIT vs. East India Charitable Trust and Akhara Ghamanda Dass vs. Asst. CIT. investments in fixed deposits exceeding six months are considered as acquiring a new capital asset. However, the AO denied the exemption under Section 11(1A) on procedural grounds, as the claim was not made in the original or revised return. While the appellant's submission is supported by judicial precedents and guidelines with a broader interpretation of Section 11(1A), the procedural requirements for claiming exemptions are clear. The Supreme Court in Goetze India Ltd, vs. CIT established that claims must be explicitly made in the returns filed, and no new claims can be entertained at the reassessment stage unless allowed by t