TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 61
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s rejected. FACTS OF THE CASE 4. The petitioner is a public charitable trust registered under the provisions of Gujarat Public Trust Act, 1950 and also registered under Section 12A of the Act with effect from 01.04.2007. The petitioner has asserted that it has consistently maintained its registration under Section 12A of the Act and has been granted a fresh registration certificate under Section 12A of the amended Act by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) on 07.06.2021, reaffirming the petitioner's recognition as a charitable trust under the Act. The petitioner is regularly assessed to income tax in India under the provisions of the Act. 5. The petitioner was the owner of immovable property situated at "Sheth Shri Karshan Halu Dharamshala", P.N Marg, Opp. Amber Cinema, Jamnagar. The property was being utilized for the charitable purposes in line with the objects of the trust. The trustees of the petitioner-Trust, in their meeting resolved to sell the aforesaid property in the interest of the Trust. Thereafter, the petitioner-Trust obtained sanction of Joint Charity Commissioner, Rajkot in terms of Section 36(1)(a) of the Gujarat Public Trust Act, 1950 vide ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he petitioner addressed a letter dated 21.01.2016 to the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Jamnagar, requesting issuance of a duplicate copy of intimation. 5.5 Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision application under Section 264 of the Act before respondent no. 1 on 31.03.2016. The application remained pending for adjudication for years despite repeated reminders dated 04.01.2019 and 17.07.2019. During the pendency of the application, the petitioner received multiple Show Cause notices. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Special Civil Application No. 17491 of 2019, before this Court. By order dated 28.09.2020, the Coordinate Bench of this Court directed Respondent No. 1 to decide the pending revision application within two months of receipt of the certified copy of the order, after granting due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner though supplied requisite details and supporting documents vide letter dated 12.10.2020, the respondent no. 1 vide impugned order dated 19.11.2020, rejected the revision application. Hence, the present writ petition. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 6. Learned advocate Mr. Dh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an 224 (Guj.). Finally, the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Swaminarayan Mandir Trust vs. Commisssioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai & Ors, [2026] 182 taxmann.com 209 (Bom.). Thus, it is urged that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under the provision of Section 264 of the Act may be directed to be allowed. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 7. Opposing the present writ petition and the foregoing submissions, learned Senior Standing Counsel, Mr. Aman Mir appearing for the respondent while referring to the contents of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents on 11.02.2026 has submitted that the return of income filed by the petitioner was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 02.06.2015 and accordingly, the demand notice of Rs. 19,44,180/- was issued to the assessee after disallowing the 15% i.e. sum of Rs. 60,92,832/- (i.e minus 15% of Rs. 4,06,18,878/-) accumulation claimed. It is submitted that after passing of the aforesaid order, the petitioner assessee filed a revision application under the provision of Section 264 of the Act on 31.03.2016 which is precisely not entertained b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estion. The petitioner-Trust has obtained sanction from the Joint Commissioner Rajkot in terms of Section 36(1A) of the Gujarat Public Trust Act, 1950 vide order dated 29.11.2007 for sale of the property, subject to certain conditions regarding utilization of the said proceeds. Accordingly, the petitioner-Trust sold the immovable property to one M./s K.P Infrastructure for a total consideration of Rs. 4,87,50,000/- under a registered sale deed dated 11.07.2011. The consideration was received through account payee cheques and was duly deposited in the petitioner Trust's account with Canara Bank, Jamnagar. Thereafter, in compliance of the conditions imposed by the Joint Charity Commissioner vide its sanction order dated 29.11.2007 the entire sale proceeds were invested in FDR with Canara Bank, Jamnagar for a period of two years. The petitioner while its return for A.Y 2012-13 declaring total income of Rs. 3,44,92,970/-, inadvertently did not claim exemption under Section 11(1A) of the Act, in respect of the reinvestment of the capital gains in the FDR, as previously mentioned, the petitioner is entitled to such exemption under instruction no. 883 dated 24.09.1975. 11. Due to omiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x, clearly proved that he was not entitled to the benefit of section 10(15)(iv)(fa) of the Act in relation to the said deposits. On the merits of the case, all that is observed by the Commissioner is that the matter was got examined by the Assessing Officer, who had given the actual days of the petitioner's stay in India, which also negatives the claim of the petitioner without any discussion as to what were the number of actual days of the petitioner's stay in India, on account of which the petitioner's claim was required to be negatived. It is not stated in the impugned order that the details submitted by the petitioner in the revision application are incorrect, nor has the Commissioner considered the period of stay of the petitioner in India in respect of the preceding assessment years as well as the subsequent assessment years. The main refrain of the Commissioner seems to be that the petitioner himself having filed the return showing the said income to be the assessable income, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of exemption under section 10(15)(iv) (fa) of the Act. 15. This court in the case of S.R. Koshti (supra) has held that the income-tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ferred the decision in the case of C. Parikh & Co. (supra) has reiterated that there is no restriction on the Commissioner of revisional power to give relief to the assessee in the case where the assessee detects mistakes on account of which he is over assessed after the assessment was completed. It is also held that the commissioner while examining the application under Section 264 of the Act is required to apply his mind to the facts of the case, as to whether the assessee is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in the application. 14. In the instant case, the Joint Commissioner while rejecting the application and passing an order under Section 264 of the Act has questioned the action of the petitioner-Trust in violating the conditions of the order dated 29.11.2007. The Commissioner has also doubted the action of the petitioner-Trust in not following the conditions and at the same time ignored the order dated 23.09.2019 granting approval to the order dated 29.11.2007 and the Revised Trust Deed with conditions that the Trust shall comply with its objects which the petitioner has asserted that it has been following the objects of the Trust. The petitioner, thereafter had filed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....coming to the decision as cited by Mr Mohanty, we are not persuaded to accept that the decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) in the facts of the present case would at all be applicable. Such decision is not in the context of the revisionary powers as conferred under the provisions of section 264 of the Income Tax Act, but in the context of deduction claimed by the assessee by a letter, after the return was filed, without filing of a revised return." 21. Further, this Court in the case of Hapag Lloyd India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held as under:- "13. Mr. Thakkar was justified in placing reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Geekay Security Services (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(2) wherein the Division Bench considered an identical question as to whether the revisional authority was justified in rejecting the revision application solely on the ground that the applicant had not claimed the benefit in the original return. After adverting to the previous pronouncements of various High Courts, this concurred with the view that Section 264 does not limit the power to correct errors committed by the sub-ordinate author....