2024 (10) TMI 1635 - AT - Income Tax

Denial of benefit u/s 11 - delayed submission of Form no. 10B - as argued Form 10B filed subsequently and accordingly same is considered as technical default which does not take away fundamental rights - HELD THAT - Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court by judgment ASSOCIATION OF INDIAN PANELBOARD MANUFACTURER VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2023 (3) TMI 1374 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT holding that w.e.f. Astt. Year 2016-17 filing of form though mandatory in nature but procedural in nature owing amendment made in Finance Act 2015. In the present case however same has been filed subsequently and therefore the above decision of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court is squarely applicable. Assessee having satisfied the requirement of the law we set aside the impugned orders of the Revenue authorities and allow the grounds of appeal.

Summary

The issue in this case revolves around the delayed submission of Form no. 10B by the assessee, which the counsel argued was a technical default. The appeal was against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 26.05.2024 for the Asst. Year 2016-17 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee raised grounds challenging the lower authorities' order, including the rejection of benefits under sections 11 and 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act, and the charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C.The counsel for the assessee referenced a previous decision of the ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Association of Indian Panelboard Manufacturer Vs. DCIT, where a similar claim was rejected but later reversed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. The High Court held that filing Form no. 10B, though mandatory, was procedural in nature, and the availability of the audit report before the assessment satisfied the legal requirement. The High Court concluded that the non-filing of the audit report along with the return of income was a procedural omission and not an impediment to claiming exemptions under sections 11(1) and 11(2) of the Act.The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld.CIT(A), while the Tribunal considered the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court and found that the assessee had met the legal requirements. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the Revenue authorities and allowed the grounds of appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of the law as clarified by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, emphasizing that the filing of Form no. 10B and the audit report was procedural and not substantive in nature. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, granting the exemptions under sections 11(1) and 11(2) of the Act, and overturning the decisions of the Revenue authorities.