TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 017 i.e. before filing Return of Income u/s 139 of the Act i.e. 26/10/2017. After coming to know about the said mistake of not uploading the Audit Report, the same has been uploaded on 06/09/2019. After coming to know about not uploading the Audit Report, the Assessee filed a letter for condonation of delay uploading the Form 10B along with certificate from auditors explaining the reason for delay and hard copy of Form No. 10B was sent through registered post to the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions). Thus, it can be safely construed that the Revenue has rejected the plea of the Assessee based on mere technicalities and it is not the case of the Revenue that the Audit Report was not ready as on the date of filing of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. CIT (appeals) has grossly erred in not considering that the appellant Trust had already complied with the filing of audit report in form I0B in terms of the Circular No. 10/2019 (F. No.197/55/2018-ITA-I), dt. 22-5-2019 modified with the Circular No. 7/2021 (F.No. 197/49/2021 -ITA-1), dt. 26-3-2021 and the time limit for passing the order of condonation in filing of audit report by the PCIT(E ) had already expired. 3. The Ld. ClT(Appeals) has grossly erred in his faliure to consider the case of M/s Shrimati Gitadevi Kondoi Seva Nidhi Vs. ITO (Exemption), I.T.A. No. 2498/Kol/2018, Dated- January 22nd ,2020 by the coordinate Bench of the Honourable 1TAT while framing the appellate order. 4. The appellant prays for leave to add, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y erred in confirming the order made by the CPC without considering the factum of non-adherence to the conditions of Section 143 (1) of the Act. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellant s trust has already complied with the filing of Audit Report in Form No. 10B in terms of Circular No. 10/2019 dated 22.05.2019 modified with the Circular No. 7/2021 dated 26.03.2021 and the time limit for the passing of order of condonation in filing of the Audit Report by the PCIT (Exemption) had already expired. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider the case of M/s. Shrimati Gitadevi Kondoi Seva Nidhi Vs. ITO (Exemption), ITA No. 2498/Kol/2018 dated 22nd January, 2020. Thus, contended that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x (Exemptions). Thus, it can be safely construed that the Revenue has rejected the plea of the Assessee based on mere technicalities and it is not the case of the Revenue that the Audit Report was not ready as on the date of filing of the return or Assessee is not eligible for any other reason for claiming charitable status by claiming application of income for charitable purpose u/s 11 12 of the Act. 8. The Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pawan Kuamr Agarwal Vs. CIT in ITA No. 199/2014 has held as under:- 8. 6. Section 154 to the extent it is relevant is extracted below: Rectification of mistake. 154. [(1) With a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record an income-tax authority referred to in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agreement with the decision in Sam Global s matter (supra) that the technicalities in the given circumstances of the case ought not to obscure the justice. The justice demands, in the peculiar facts of the case, that there is no impediment to relief. That appears to have been overlooked in entirety by the lower authorities and the Tribunal had failed to notice that the controlling expression in Section 154 is not an error which is somewhat coloured by the exercise of power by the authorities. Instead, the controlling expression is any mistake which has wider connotation and includes mistakes committed by the parties also. 7. In view of the above discussion, the question of law framed has to be answered in favour of the assessee and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|