Case Law Details
Navalmal Firodia Memorial Hospital Trust Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
Section 11 Accumulation Utilised in 6th Year Valid – Amendment Prospective – CPC Adjustment U/s 11(3) 115BBI Deleted by ITAT Pune
The ITAT Pune allowed the appeal of a charitable hospital trust & deleted the CPC adjustment of ₹6 lakh made u/s 11(3) r.w.s. 115BBI, holding that accumulation made in AY 2017-18 could be validly utilised within five years plus one additional year as per the law prevailing at the time of accumulation. The Tribunal observed that the trust had already utilised the accumulated amount before 31-03-2023, i.e., within the permissible 5+1 year period, and therefore no deemed income could arise in AY 2023-24.
Relying on coordinate bench ruling in Yeshwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University & the principle that amendments imposing burden are prospective, the Tribunal held that Finance Act 2022 changes restricting the period cannot be applied retrospectively to earlier accumulations. It also noted that CPC cannot make adjustments on debatable issues.
Accordingly, the order of CIT(A) was set aside & AO/CPC was directed to delete the addition, reaffirming that accumulations governed by earlier law remain eligible for utilisation in the 6th year.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.09.2025 passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-5, Delhi [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2023-24.
2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :
“Ground No. 1- Disallowance of Rs. 6,00,000/-.
a) The learned ADDLN/JCIT (5), Delhi (CIT-A) erred in law and of facts in confirming the action of learned CPC of adding back Rs.6,00,000 to the total income of the Appellant by invoking the
b) The learned CIT-A and CPC grossly misinterpreted the provisions of Section 11(3)(c) of the Act by restricting the time limit to five years for spending the accumulated fund, instead of six years from the end of the year of its accumulation, for the accumulations made in Financial Year 2016-2017 (Α.Υ. 20172018).
c) The learned CIT-A and CPC ought to have appreciated that amendment to this Section was made by Finance Act, 2022 w.e.f 01.04.2023 1.e. A.Y. 2023-2024 and hence the accumulations made in F.Y. 2016-2017 are out of the ambit of the amendment made to Section 11(3) of the Act and cannot be applied retrospectively.
d) Without prejudice to the above, the order confirming the action of learned CPC is bad in law even if the amendment is deemed to have been made retrospectively, the impugned addition made by learned CPC has to be made in AY 2022-2023 and not in AY 2023-2024.
e) The learned CPC has no power to make adjustment on the issues, which are debatable in nature and therefore the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the decision made by CPC in its Intimation dated 02.12.2024.
f) Although the decision of Hon’ble Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench B, decided on the similar facts of the Appellant Trust, was relied upon before the learned CIT(A), the same has neither been taken note of or distinguished in any manner. Not following the binding Judicial precedent of the Jurisdictional ITAT Pune is gross impropriety in law.
Ground No. 2:
The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing.”
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a public charitable trust duly registered with Charity Commissioner, Pune and also registered u/s 12A of the IT Act. The trust filed its return of income on 29.11.2023 declaring Rs.Nil income after claiming exemption u/s 11 of the IT Act. The return was processed by CPC u/s 143(1) of the IT Act by making an adjustment of Rs.6,00,000/-to the income of the assessee and determined taxable income at Rs.6,00,000/-. According to CPC, the assessee has not utilized the accumulation of Rs.6,00,000/- on or before 31.03.2022 and therefore, the provisions of section 11(3) of the IT Act were applied and the said amount is treated as deemed income of the trust for the assessment year 2023-24.
4. Being aggrieved with the above action of the CPC, the assessee trust preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). After considering the reply and submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and confirmed the intimation order passed by CPC.
5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
6. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the assessee trust has accumulated Rs.6,00,000/- out of the income of assessment year 2017-18 which could not be utilized in that year for the purposes of achieving the objects of the trust and therefore the above amount was set apart to be spent in subsequent years by furnishing a statement in prescribed Form in accordance with section 11(2)(a) of the IT Act. He submitted that financial year 2022-23 i.e. assessment year 2023-24 is the 6th year. Since the prevailing law provides for addition in the 6th year, if the accumulated amount is not utilized by the end of 31.03.2023, therefore, no addition can be made in the assessment year 2023-24. He submitted that the conditions as per the law prevailing at the time of accumulation i.e. assessment year 2017-18 are to be applied. Since all the conditions as per law of assessment year 2017-18 have been complied with, therefore, no addition is warranted. It was submitted that the above accumulation amount was already fully utilized by the trust in financial year 2022-23. It was submitted that as per section 11(3) of the Act as stood at that time (at the time of accumulation i.e. as on 31.03.2017), accumulated amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was required to be utilized by 31.03.2022. In case the same is not utilized, then the amount was taxable in the year 2023-24 only if such amount is unutilized by 31.03.2023. Since the assessee has already utilized an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- before the end of 31.03.2023, therefore, the CPC is not justified in making the addition. It was further submitted that the amendment to section 11(3) restricting the non-utilization to 5 years is applicable from assessment year 2023-24 and to be applied prospectively. In support of its contentions, Ld. AR relied on the order passed by coordinate bench of this Tribunal passed in the case of Yeshwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University vs. CIT, Exemption [2025] 175 taxmann.com 988 order dated 23.06.2025 wherein under identical facts the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee & held that the amount can be utilized upto assessment year 2023-24 i.e. for the specified period of five years plus one more year. Accordingly, Ld. AR requested before the Bench to allow the appeal of the assessee.
7. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue relied on the orders passed by the subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same.
8. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the copy of case laws furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that the assessee is relying on a coordinate bench decision of this Tribunal passed in the case of Yeshwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University vs. CIT, Exemption [2025] 175 taxmann.com 988 order dated 23.06.2025 wherein the Tribunal has decided an identical issue by observing as under :-
“15. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the order passed by the CPC and the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the assessee in the instant case filed its return of income on 30.11.2023 declaring total income as Nil. Since the assessee has accumulated an amount of Rs.90,70,20,511/- during the financial year 2016-17 and has utilized the same by 31.03.2023 i.e. in the 6th year of accumulation, the CPC taxed it in the 6th year i.e. financial year 2022-23. We find in appeal the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A) upheld the addition made by the CPC, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as applicable to assessment year 2023-24 provides for taxation in the 5th year only and not in 6th year, therefore, taxing it in the 6th year ought to be deleted. It is his submission that for the amounts which are accumulated in assessment year 2017-18, the amount was taxable only if such accumulated amount was not applied within 6 years from the year of accumulation i.e. 5 years plus one year. Since the assessee has applied such accumulated amount within 6 years therefore, it is not taxable in that year also. It is also his alternate submission that since the issue is a debatable one, therefore, no adjustment can be made by the CPC. Further, it is his submission that the amendment to section 11(3) of the Act is to be applicable prospectively i.e. applicable for the amounts accumulated from assessment year 2023-24 and onwards and not for the amounts which were accumulated earlier.
16. We find some force in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee on this issue. The provisions of section 11(2) and 11(3) of the Act as stood at the relevant time read as under:
“11(1)….
(2) Where eighty-five per cent of the income referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) read with the Explanation to that subsection is not applied, or is not deemed to have been applied, to charitable or religious purposes in India during the previous year but is accumulated or set apart, either in whole or in part, for application to such purposes in India, such income so accumulated or set apart shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income, provided the following conditions are complied with, namely:—
(a) such person furnishes a statement in the prescribed form and in the prescribed manner to the Assessing Officer, stating the purpose for which the income is being accumulated or set apart and the period for which the income is to be accumulated or set apart, which shall in no case exceed five years;
(b) the money so accumulated or set apart is invested or deposited in the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5);
(c) the statement referred to in clause (a) is furnished on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139 for furnishing the return of income for the previous year:
Provided that in computing the period of five years referred to in clause (a), the period during which the income could not be applied for the purpose for which it is so accumulated or set apart, due to an order or injunction of any court, shall be excluded.
Explanation.—Any amount credited or paid, out of income referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1), read with the Explanation to that sub-section, which is not applied, but is accumulated or set apart, to any trust or institution registered under section 12AA [or section 12AB] or to any fund or institution or trust or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10, shall not be treated as application of income for charitable or religious purposes, either during the period of accumulation or thereafter.
(3) Any income referred to in sub-section (2) which——
(a) is applied to purposes other than charitable or religious purposes as aforesaid or ceases to be accumulated or set apart for application thereto, or
(b) ceases to remain invested or deposited in any of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5), or
(c) is not utilised for the purpose for which it is so accumulated or set apart during the period referred to in clause (a) of that sub-section [or in the year immediately following the expiry thereof],
(d) is credited or paid to any trust or institution registered under section 12AA [or section 12AB] or to any fund or institution or trust or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10,
[shall be deemed to be the income of such person of the previous year in which it is so applied or ceases to be so accumulated or set apart or ceases to remain so invested or deposited or credited or paid or, as the case may be, of the previous year immediately following the expiry of the period aforesaid]”
17. A perusal of the above shows that the words “or in the year immediately following the expiry thereof” was omitted by the Finance Act, 2022 w.e.f. 01.04.2023 which is applicable for assessment year 2023-24 onwards. It is an admitted fact that when the trust accumulated an amount of Rs.90,70,20,511/-during the financial year 2016-17 it was required to utilize the same within a period of 5 years from the end of the relevant assessment year or in the year immediately following the expiry thereof. In other words, the assessee was required to utilize the same before the end of the 6th year i.e. financial year 202223. The assessee in the instant case undisputedly has utilized the amount before 31.03.2023.
18. We find the relevant provisions of Memorandum explaining provisions of the Finance Bill, 2022 read as under:
“4. Bringing consistency in the provisions of two exemption regimes
As mentioned earlier, there is a requirement for alignment of certain provisions of the two regimes as they both intend to grant similar benefit.
4.1 Accumulation provisions
(i) Under the existing provisions of the Act, a trust or institution is required to apply 85% of its income during any previous year. However, if it is not able to apply 85% of its income during the previous year, it is allowed to accumulate such income for a period not exceeding 5 years as per the following provisions, namely:
(I) sub-section (2) of section 11 of the Act for the trusts or institution under the second regime; and
(II) third proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act for trusts or institution under the first regime.
(ii) However, the accumulation of income, as per the provisions of subsection (2) of section 11 of the Act is allowed subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions while there are no such conditions specifically provided under the third proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act;
(iii) Similarly, sub-section (3) of section 11 of the Act provides for the specific previous year in which the accumulated income will be subjected to tax in case of different types of violations. It, inter alia, provides that if the accumulated income is not applied within 5 years, it shall be taxed in the 6th year. While, on the other hand, there are no such specific provisions under clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act and therefore, if the accumulated income is not applied within 5 years, the same shall be taxed in the 5th year itself.
(iv) In order to bring consistency in the two regimes, the following are proposed:-
A) It is proposed to amend the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 11 of the Act to provide that any income referred to in subsection (2) which is not utilised for the purpose for which it is so accumulated or set apart shall be deemed to be the income of such person of the previous year being the last previous year of the period, for which the income is accumulated or set apart under clause (a) of subsection (2) of section 11, but not utilised for the purpose for which it is so accumulated or set apart.
B) It is proposed to insert Explanation 3 to the third proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act to provide that for the purposes of determining the amount of application under this proviso, where eighty-five per cent of the income referred to in clause (a) of the third proviso, is not applied, wholly and exclusively to the objects for which the trust or institution under the first regime is established, during the previous year but is accumulated or set apart, either in whole or in part, for application to such objects, such income so accumulated or set apart shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income, provided the following conditions are complied with, namely:—
(a) such person furnishes a statement in the prescribed form and in the prescribed manner to the Assessing Officer, stating the purpose for which the income is being accumulated or set apart and the period for which the income is to be accumulated or set apart, which shall in no case exceed five years;
(b) the money so accumulated or set apart is invested or deposited in the forms or modes specified in subsection (5) of section 11; and
(c) the statement referred to in clause (a) of Explanation 3 is furnished on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139 for furnishing the return of income for the previous year;
C) It is proposed to insert a proviso to the proposed Explanation 3 to the third proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act to provide that in computing the period of five years referred to in sub-clause (a), the period during which the income could not be applied for the purpose for which it is so accumulated or set apart, due to an order or injunction of any court, shall be excluded.
D) It is also proposed to insert an Explanation (Explanation 4) to third proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 to provide that any income referred to in the proposed Explanation 3 shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the following takes place—
(a) the income is applied for purposes other than wholly and exclusively to the objects for which the trust or institution under the first regime is established or ceases to be accumulated or set apart for application thereto, or (b) the income ceases to remain invested or deposited in any of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11, or (c) the income is not utilised for the purpose for which it is so accumulated or set apart during the period referred to in clause (a) of the proposed Explanation 3, (d) the income is credited or paid to any trust or institution under the first or second regime.
For the circumstances referred to in clause (c), it is proposed that the income shall be deemed to be the income of previous year which is the last previous year of the period, for which the income is accumulated or set apart under sub-clause (a) of clause (iii) of the proposed Explanation 3, but not utilised for the purpose for which it is so accumulated or set apart.
E) It is proposed to insert an Explanation (Explanation 5) to third proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act to enable the Assessing Officer to allow trusts or institutions under the first regime in circumstances beyond their control to apply such accumulated income for such other purpose in India as is specified in the application by such person subsequent to fulfilment of specified conditions. These other purposes are required to be in conformity with the objects for which the trust or institution under the first regime is established. If it is done, the provisions of Explanation 4 to third proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 shall apply as if the purpose specified by such person in the application under this Explanation were a purpose specified in the notice given to the Assessing Officer under clause (a) of the proposed Explanation 3 of the third proviso to clause (23C) of section 10.
F) It is proposed to insert a proviso to proposed Explanation 5 to third proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act to provide that the Assessing Officer shall not allow the application of any accumulated income, as referred to in the proposed Explanation 3, to be credited or paid to any trust or institution under the first or second regime, as referred to in clause (d) of proposed Explanation 4 to the third proviso to clause (23C) of section 10
(v) These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2023 and will accordingly apply in relation to the assessment year 2023-24 and subsequent assessment years.
[Clauses 4 and 5] “
19. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vatika Township (P.) Ltd.(supra) on the issue of interpretation of taxing statutes about retrospective amendment and prospective amendment, has held as under:
“30. A legislation, be it a statutory Act or a statutory Rule or a statutory Notification, may physically consists of words printed on papers. However, conceptually it is a great deal more than an ordinary prose. There is a special peculiarity in the mode of verbal communication by a legislation. A legislation is not just a series of statements, such as one finds in a work of fiction/non fiction or even in a judgment of a court of law. There is a technique required to draft a legislation as well as to understand a legislation. Former technique is known as legislative drafting and latter one is to be found in the various principles of ‘Interpretation of Statutes ‘. Vis-a-vis ordinary prose, a legislation differs in its provenance, lay-out and features as also in the implication as to its meaning that arise by presumptions as to the intent of the maker thereof.
31. Of the various rules guiding how a legislation has to be interpreted, one established rule is that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation. The idea behind the rule is that a current law should govern current activities. Law passed today cannot apply to the events of the past. If we do something today, we do it keeping in view the law of today and in force and not tomorrow ‘s backward adjustment of it. Our belief in the nature of the law is founded on the bed rock that every human being is entitled to arrange his affairs by relying on the existing law and should not find that his plans have been retrospectively upset. This principle of law is known as lex prospicit non respicit : law looks forward not backward. As was observed in Phillips v. Eyre[3], a retrospective legislation is contrary to the general principle that legislation by which the conduct of mankind is to be regulated when introduced for the first time to deal with future acts ought not to change the character of past transactions carried on upon the faith of the then existing law.
32. The obvious basis of the principle against retrospectivity is the principle of ‘fairness’, which must be the basis of every legal rule as was observed in the decision reported in L’OfficeCherifien des Phosphates v. Yamashita-Shinnihon Steamship Co.Ltd[4]. Thus, legislations which modified accrued rights or which impose obligations or impose new duties or attach a new disability have to be treated as prospective unless the legislative intent is clearly to give the enactment a retrospective effect; unless the legislation is. for purpose of supplying an obvious omission in a former legislation or to explain a former legislation. We need not note the cornucopia of case law available on the subject because aforesaid legal position clearly emerges from the various decisions and this legal position was conceded by the counsel for the parties. In any case, we shall refer to few judgments containing this dicta, a little later.
33. We would also like to point out, for the sake of completeness, that where a benefit is conferred by a legislation, the rule against a retrospective construction is different. If a legislation confers a benefit on some persons but without inflicting a corresponding detriment on some other person or on the public generally, and where to confer such benefit appears to have been the legislators object, then the presumption would be that such a legislation, giving it a purposive construction, would warrant it to be given a retrospective effect. This exactly is the justification to treat procedural provisions as retrospective. In Government of India & Ors. v. Indian Tobacco Association[5], the doctrine of fairness was held to be relevant factor to construe a statute conferring a benefit, in the context of it to be given a retrospective operation. The same doctrine of fairness, to hold that a statute was retrospective in nature, was applied in the case of Vijay v. State of Maharashtra &Ors.[6] It was held that where a law is enacted for the benefit of community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature. However, we are confronted with any such situation here.
34. In such cases, retrospectively is attached to benefit the persons in contradistinction to the provision imposing some burden or liability where the presumption attaches towards prospectivity. In the instant case, the proviso added to Section 113 of the Act is not beneficial to the assessee. On the contrary, it is a provision which is onerous to the assessee. Therefore, in a case like this, we have to proceed with the normal rule of presumption against retrospective operation. Thus, the rule against retrospective operation is a fundamental rule of’law that no statute shall be construed to have a retrospective operation unless such a construction appears very clearly in the terms of the Act, or arises by necessary and distinct implication. Dogmatically framed, the rule is no more than a presumption, and thus could be displaced by out weighing factors. “
20. We find the Bangalore „C’ Bench of the Tribunal in the case of PhulchandGulabchand Charitable Trust (supra) has observed as under:
“3. The facts are that assessee had surplus income of Rs.1,93,64,000 in FY 200708 relevant to AY 2008-09 on account of sale of immovable property of the assessee trust. The objects of the trust, we may notice, was to run schools, colleges, dispensaries, Dharmashalas, etc. The assessee could not apply the aforesaid surplus for charitable purposes in AY 2008-09 and had applied for accumulation of such surplus in terms of section 11(2) of the Act. As per the provisions of section 11(2), accumulation is allowed for a period of 5 years. It is not in dispute that such accumulation was allowed by the AO for the AY 2008-09.
4. In AY 2013-14 which is the Assessment year in appeal, the AO held that since the five years period expires in AY 2013-14, and since the assessee did not utilize the sum accumulated for charitable purpose in terms of section 11(3)(c) of the Act, the sum accumulated and which remains unspent for charitable purposes, shall be deemed to be income of the person, of the previous year, immediately following the expiry of the period aforesaid. The relevant provisions of Sec.11(3) read as follows:
“(3) Any income referred to in sub-section (2) which—
(a) is applied to purposes other than charitable or religious purposes as aforesaid or ceases to be accumulated or set apart for application thereto, or
(b) ceases to remain invested or deposited in any of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5), or
(c) is not utilised for the purpose for which it is so accumulated or set apart during the period referred to in clause (a) of that subsection or in the year immediately following the expiry thereof,
(d) is credited or paid to any trust or institution registered under section 12AA or to any fund or institution or trust or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10,
shall be deemed to be the income of such person of the previous year in which it is so applied or ceases to be so accumulated or set apart or ceases to remain so invested or deposited or credited or paid or], as the case may be, of the previous year immediately following the expiry of the period aforesaid.”
5. A reading of Clause (c) of Sec.11(3) of the Act would show that the time allowed for applying accumulation for charitable purpose is 5 year and one year following the expiry of 5 years. This is clear from the expression used “or in the year immediately following the expiry thereof”. The previous year following the expiry of period of 5 years from AY 2008-09 will be AY 2014-15 and not AY 2013-14. This appeal relates to AY 2013-14 in which the AO sought to apply the provisions of section 11(3)(c). The Assessee did not raise such a plea regarding the applicability of the aforesaid provisions in AY 2014-15 only.
6. There is a reference to section 11(3)(d) in the order of AO, which in our opinion, is not the correct provision of law. Since the assessee did not give any explanation in not utilising the surplus funds accumulated, the AO brought to tax a sum of Rs.1,93,54,000.
7. Before the CIT(Appeals), the plea of assessee was that it had utilised the accumulated surplus for construction of a hostel building and products accounts evidencing income & expenditure towards the same. This plea of the assessee was rejected for the following reasons:-
“5.0) I have gone through the facts of the case and the submissions of the appellant. The provisions of section 11(2)(a) is as under:
“If the accumulated amount or any part thereof is not utilised for the specified purposes during the period of accumulation or during the year immediately following the expiry thereof, the amount which has not been so utilised will be liable to tax as income of the previous year immediately following the expiry of the accumulation period.”
In course of appellate proceedings the appellant has not furnished any details before me with regard to the said claim of expenditure pertaining to construction of hostel building and the advances given for the construction of building over the periods, which it claimed. A simple claim of maintenance of book of account is not sufficient. Further no details whatsoever were furnished before me regarding the claim that advance for purchase of property was made, with any corroborative evidence, that it incurred expenditure out of the above surplus amount. In absence of the above, I do not hesitate in concluding that the action of the AO was correct and the addition was made rightly. The grounds 1 to 4 and 6 are hereby dismissed.”
8. The Assessee did not raise plea regarding the applicability of the aforesaid provisions of Sec.11(3)(c) of the Act only in AY 2014-15 only. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal.
9. As we have already noticed, the period of 5 years for spending the accumulated surplus for AY 2008-09 “or in the year immediately following the expiry thereof” is only AY 2014-15. This aspect has been highlighted by the assessee in ground Nos.2 to 4 in its appeal before the Tribunal, which reads as follows:-
“2. That the learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that u/s 11(3)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides that accumulated income should be utilized during the 5 years period of accumulation or in the year immediately following the expiry thereof. That means, in the facts & circumstances of this case, the assesee at liberty to utilize the accumulated surplus up to 31-03- 2014. Now in this case, the assessee has utilized of Rs,1,67,47,400/- as investment in poor student hostel in the year 2013-14. Therefore, there is no contravention of section 11(3) and the accumulated surplus up to 313-2013 cannot become deemed income of the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14.
3. That the learned CIT(A) has failed to take note of the AO assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 26.12,2016 for the A Y 2014-15, Wherein the learned.A0 has concluded the assessment after considering the bonafide explanation offered by the assessee and allowed the claim of Rs.1„67,47,400/- out of total surplus of Rs.1,93,54,529/- and the remaining balance of Rs:26 07,129 was treated as income u/s. 13(1)(c) of the Act.
4. That the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant has furnished all the details with regard to claim of expenditure pertaining to construction of hostel building and other advances given for building over the periods have been produced before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings for the A Y 2014-15 and the same was considered and accepted by the AO.”
10. The ld. counsel for the assessee has also filed before us a copy of the order of assessment for AY 2014-15 wherein the AO has accepted the utilization of accumulated surplus in AY 2008-09 for charitable purpose in AY 2014-15. The ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the fact that the assessee had spent a sum of Rs.1,67,47,400 and to this extent, the application of income for charitable purposes has been accepted by the AO in AY 2014-15 in the order of assessment dated 26.12.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act.
11. The ld. DR while relying on the order of CIT(Appeals) submitted that this aspect has not been examined either by the AO or the CIT(Appeals) and therefore the issue should be sent back to the AO for fresh consideration in the light of order of assessment for AY 2014-15.
12. We have considered the rival submissions and are of the view that the issue raised now before the Tribunal in the form of grounds of appeal which we have extracted in the earlier part of the order should be considered by the AO. If AY 2013-14 is not the period within which the accumulated surplus has to be applied, then the addition made should be deleted. We therefore set aside the order of CIT(Appeals) and remand this issue for fresh consideration by the AO, after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
13. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.”
21. In light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that since the assessee in the instant case has utilized the accumulated surplus funds in the year immediately following the prescribed period of 5 years i.e. before 31.03.2023 and the amendment to the provisions of section 11(3) are held to be prospective in nature, therefore, the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A) in our opinion is not justified in upholding the intimation of the CPC making adjustment of Rs.90,70,20,511/-u/s 11(3) as deemed income of the assessee which was accumulated in the financial year 2016-17 and when the provisions at the relevant time prescribed the utilization of the amount within a period of 5 years or in the year immediately following the prescribed period of 5 years. Even otherwise also we find merit in the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the 5 year period ends on 31.03.2022 and therefore the unutilized amount could have been brought to tax in assessment year 2022-23 and not in assessment year 2023-24. In the light of the above discussion, we set aside the order of the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer/CPC to delete the adjustment. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed.
22. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.”
9. Respectfully following the above decision of coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Yeshwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the amount set apart in assessment year 2017-18 was to be utilized within five years or in the year immediately following the expiry thereof i.e. in 5+1 year, & since in the instant case the assessee trust has utilized/spent Rs.6,00,000/- in the 6th year, the question of disallowance/addition does not arise. Accordingly, we set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer/CPC to delete the adjustment/addition of Rs.6,00,000/- made to the income of the assessee. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.
10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on this 10th day of February, 2026.
Author Bio
