Appeal Dismissed: No Delay in Tax Form Submission

Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) And Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai Versus M/s. Chennai Port Trust, Rep. by its Chairman, Mr. Atulya Mishra,

Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) And Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai Versus M/s. Chennai Port Trust, Rep. by its Chairman, Mr. ... Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing Form No.10 for assessment year 2006-2007 under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Justification of rejection of claim by the Director of Income Tax.
3. Applicability of Form No.10 for claiming exemption.
4. Assessment of delay in filing statutory forms.

Analysis:
1. The Chennai Port Trust initially filed returns for the assessment year 2006-2007 without submitting Form No.10 due to lack of registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act. Subsequently, upon receiving retrospective registration, the necessary documents were submitted to claim exemption under Section 11. The appellant sought condonation of the delay, citing prompt filing post-registration. The Director of Income Tax rejected the condonation request, stating it can only be granted for oversights in filing Form No.10. The single Judge in Writ Petition No. 23088 of 2011 set aside the Director's order, emphasizing no undue delay. The appellants appealed against this decision.

2. The appellants argued that the respondent used a different form for exemption, justifying the Director's rejection. They claimed the original return was filed in Form No.2, intended for non-corporate taxable assessees. However, the Court noted that the respondent had timely submitted returns before the due date, applied for Section 12AA registration, and eventually received it retroactively. There was no delay in filing Form No.10 as per Rule 17 of the Income Tax Act.

3. Form No.10 serves as a notice to the Assessing Officer under Section 11(2) regarding accumulated income for Trust/Association purposes. The single Judge's analysis considered various timelines, including original return filing, Tribunal remand, subsequent returns, Section 12AA registration, and Form No.10 submission. The Court concurred with the single Judge's finding that the filing was not unduly delayed, rejecting the appellants' grounds for appeal.

4. The Court concluded that the appellants failed to demonstrate any unjustifiable delay in submitting Form No.10. The appeal was dismissed, with no costs imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petition closed. The judgment upheld the single Judge's decision, emphasizing the timely compliance with statutory requirements and the lack of grounds for condonation of delay.