Exemption u/s 11: Condonation of Delay in Filing Form 10

Deciphering Legal Judgments: A Comprehensive Analysis of Case Law

Reported as:

2024 (3) TMI 1327 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Introduction

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of a recent judgment by the High Court (HC) concerning the condonation of delay in filing Form 10 u/s 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The case involved a trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, which manages a Jain Derasar (Temple) in Mumbai. The trust had filed an application for condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10 for the Assessment Year 2019-20, which was initially rejected by the Income Tax Department.

Arguments Presented

The trust had filed its return of income on October 24, 2019, u/s 139(1) of the Act. However, there was a delay of 361 days in submitting Form 10, which was eventually filed on October 26, 2020. The Income Tax Department rejected the condonation of delay application, citing that the reason provided by the trust, which was an oversight by the trust's management, could not be considered a reasonable cause. The department argued that the trust, being an old and registered entity, should have been aware of the rules and regulations of the Income Tax Department.

Discussions and Findings of the Court

The court heard the arguments from both parties and considered an additional affidavit filed by Mr. Hitesh Dedhia, the auditor of the trust for the Assessment Year 2019-20. Mr. Dedhia explained that since the factum of accumulation of receipts was reported in the audit report in Form No. 10B, he was under the bona fide impression that there was no separate requirement to file a separate statement, and that the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act were complied with.

Mr. Dedhia further stated that due to inadvertence and oversight, he did not consider the provisions of Rule 17 of the Act, which required a separate statement in Form No. 10 to be filed apart from the audit report in Form No. 10B. Consequently, he did not advise the trust to file Form No. 10. It was only after receiving an intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act on or around June 5, 2020, denying the accumulation, and during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, that Form No. 10 was uploaded on October 26, 2020, and the condonation of delay application was filed on October 27, 2020.

Analysis and Decision by the Court

The court was satisfied that the delay was not intentional or deliberate. It acknowledged that the trust could not be prejudiced due to the ignorance of the Rules admitted by the professional engaged by the trust. The court found Mr. Dedhia's explanation to be reasonable and accepted it, deciding to condone the delay.

The court commended Mr. Dedhia for being candid about his lapse, stating that one needs courage to admit a mistake. Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated November 3, 2023, and treated the delay in filing Form No. 10 for the Assessment Year 2019-20 as condoned.

The court also clarified that the trust might, if advised, take necessary steps, including filing an application u/s 154 of the Act for rectification. If such an application were filed within two weeks from the date the order was uploaded, any delay in filing the application u/s 154 would also be considered as having been condoned.

Legal Principle or Doctrine Discussed

The judgment did not explicitly discuss any specific legal principle or doctrine. However, it highlighted the importance of considering the circumstances and reasonable explanations provided by the parties when determining whether to condone delays in compliance with statutory requirements.

Relied Upon or Followed Judgments

The judgment did not explicitly rely upon or follow any specific judgments from higher courts.

Comprehensive Summary

The High Court, in this case, condoned the delay of 361 days in filing Form No. 10 for the Assessment Year 2019-20 by a trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The court accepted the explanation provided by the trust's auditor, Mr. Hitesh Dedhia, who admitted to inadvertently overlooking the requirement to file a separate statement in Form No. 10 apart from the audit report in Form No.

Full Text:

2024 (3) TMI 1327 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT