9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1012X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... along with refund filed is to be treated as procedural requirement though it is mandatory in nature but substantial compliance is required to be made. It was further observed that the approach of the authority in such type of case should be equitable and judicious. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner trust for past many years has substantially satisfied the conditions for claiming the exemption which should not be denied for non filing of Form 10B in time. The petitioner has explained the reason for delay in filing Form 10B due to illness of the Accountant who was on leave for a long time due to medical reasons. Petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent to p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 03.08.1977 and is running educational institutions namely H.K. Arts College of Commerce, Institute of Business Administration etc. 6. The petitioner filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-2018 after claiming benefits under section 11 and 12 of the Act available to a registered trust. 7. The petitioner also filed Form No. 10B dated 28.03.2018 which is an audit report prescribed under section 12A (b) of the Act. 8. The petitioner had also exercised the option of accumulation of income as per the provision of section 11 (2) of the Act and accordingly filed Form No. 10 on 27.03.2018 showing accumulation amounting to Rs. 31, 32, 000/- which is 31.04% of income of the trust for the year under consideration. 9. The petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accumulation claim of Rs. 31, 32, 000/- as per the direction of PCIT to show compliance of pre-conditions laid down under section 11 (2) of the Act. 15. The respondent however, passed impugned order dated 19.12.2019 under section 119 (2) (b) of the Act rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10 by stating that delay in filing Form 10 had occurred due to internal administrative problems and thus it could not be considered as a reasonable cause for condonation of delay. 16. The Assessing Officer also passed assessment order dated 19.12.2019 under section 143 (3) of the Act assessing the total income of the petitioner at Rs. 31, 32, 000/- after denying the benefit of option under section 11 (2) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cular No. 10.2019 dated 22.05.2019. The respondent vide order dated 22.06.2020 condoned the delay in filing Form No. 10B 23. Learned advocate Mr. Manish Shah for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has adopted a pedantic and hyper technical approach while considering the delay condonation application of the petitioner trust in connection with filing of Form NO. 10 and income tax return. 24. It was submitted that Circular No. 7 of 2018 issued by CBDT was cited before the respondent, but the respondent chose to ignore the directions of the said circular while rejecting the condonation application preferred by the petitioner trust. 25. Relying on the decision in case of CIT v. Mayur Foundation reported in 274 ITR 562, it was submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ising a demand of Rs. 3, 09, 408/- and disallowed the accumulation of Rs. 31, 32, 000/- as claimed by the petitioner under section 11 (2) due to delay caused in filing of the said Form No. 10. 28. It was submitted that the claims putforth by the petitioner for condonation of delay were completely unsupported by any evidence and therefore, the department issued a show cause notice dated 09.05.2019 directing the petitioner to provide proof for any reasonable cause or genuine hardships to have occurred in filing Form 10 within due date. It was submitted that since the petitioner failed to adduce any evidence to prove a reasonable cause for delay, the respondent vide impugned order dated 19.12.2019 rejected the application of condonation of de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 34. It also emerges from the record that the petitioner was under an impression that the delay was condoned however, only when the order under section 154 of the Act was proposed by the Assessing Officer, pursuant to the rejection of the application of the petitioner to condone delay under section 119 (2) (b) of the Act by disallowing the amount applied for charitable purpose under section 11 of the Act amounting to Rs. 3, 69, 08, 845/- and thereafter the petitioner has preferred this petition. The petitioner has also placed on record the audited balance sheet dated 27.08.2021. It is also not in dispute that that the petitioner is getting benefit of sections 11 and 12 of the Act for past many years. 35. In the decision of this Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
