CIT order denying Section 12A exemption for eight-day audit delay set aside for arbitrary refusal to condone delay

Orissa HC set aside CIT (Exemption) order denying benefit under Section 12A due to eight-day delay in submitting audit report in Form-10B. Court held that CIT failed to apply conscientious mind and did not properly consider condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) read with Circular No.16/2024. Emphasizing substantial justice over technicality, HC found genuine hardship existed and CIT's refusal to condone delay was arbitrary. Matter remitted to CIT for reconsideration of exemption claim.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter include:

(a) Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) was justified in rejecting the petition for condonation of delay of 133 days in filing the audit report in Form 10B under Rule 17B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 for claiming exemption under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Years 2020-21 and 2021-22;

(b) Whether the delay caused due to a technical glitch and the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act;

(c) The scope and exercise of discretion vested in the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, particularly in light of Circular No.16 of 2024 dated 18.11.2024, which allows condonation of delay up to 365 days;

(d) Whether denial of exemption on the ground of delay in filing the audit report, which is procedural in nature and can be filed even before assessment, is sustainable;

(e) The applicability of precedents, including the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Sarvodaya Charitable Trust vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), and the Court's own earlier decision in Action Research for Health and Socio-economic Development vs. CBDT, in guiding the exercise of discretion for condonation of delay.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a) and (b): Justification for rejection of condonation of delay and sufficiency of cause due to technical glitch and Covid-19 pandemic

The legal framework governing the condonation of delay in filing documents such as the audit report in Form 10B is Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This provision empowers the Commissioner of Income Tax to condone delay in certain cases if sufficient cause is shown. The Court also referred to Circular No.16 of 2024 dated 18.11.2024, which explicitly delegates discretion to the Commissioner to condone delay up to 365 days for filing Form 10B in relation to Assessment Years from 2018-19 onwards.

The Petitioner contended that the delay of 133 days in filing the audit report was attributable to a technical glitch, compounded by the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, which was not adequately appreciated by the Commissioner. The Petitioner emphasized that the delay was procedural and did not affect the substantive right to exemption under Section 12A.

The Court noted that the Petitioner had been availing exemption benefits since Assessment Year 2002-03 and that the delay was limited to 133 days beyond the due date of 15.01.2021 for the 2020-21 audit report, which was eventually filed on 21.05.2021. For the Assessment Year 2021-22, the audit report was filed on 15.02.2022. The Court accepted the Petitioner's explanation of technical difficulties and pandemic-related hardships as genuine, especially since the Income Tax Department did not dispute these grounds.

The Court relied on its prior decision in Action Research for Health and Socio-economic Development vs. CBDT, which underscored that substantial justice must prevail over mere technicalities, particularly in pandemic times. The Court held that the Commissioner failed to apply his mind conscientiously and pragmatically in exercising discretion under Section 119(2)(b). The rejection of the condonation petition was therefore arbitrary and not in consonance with the principles of equity and justice.

Issue (c): Scope and exercise of discretion under Section 119(2)(b) and Circular No.16/2024

The Court examined the extent of discretionary power vested in the Commissioner under Section 119(2)(b), which was further clarified and expanded by Circular No.16/2024. This Circular empowers the Commissioner to condone delays up to 365 days in filing Form 10B for Assessment Years from 2018-19 onwards, recognizing the procedural nature of the audit report submission.

The Court observed that the Commissioner's order dated 05.09.2024 did not reflect a proper application of this discretionary power, as it failed to consider the genuine hardship faced by the Petitioner and the mitigating circumstances of the technical glitch and pandemic. The discretion was exercised in a pedantic and rigid manner, contrary to the pragmatic approach mandated by the law and the Circular.

The Court emphasized that the discretion under Section 119(2)(b) is not to be exercised in a mechanical or arbitrary fashion but must be guided by principles of fairness and substantial justice.

Issue (d): Procedural nature of audit report filing and denial of exemption on delay

Relying on the Gujarat High Court's decision in Sarvodaya Charitable Trust vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), the Court acknowledged that filing of the audit report in Form 10B is procedural and can be completed even before assessment. The audit report is a prerequisite for claiming exemption under Section 12A but the delay in filing the report should not automatically disentitle the Petitioner from exemption, especially where sufficient cause for delay is shown.

The Court held that denial of exemption solely on the ground of delay in filing the audit report, without due consideration of the reasons for delay and the principle of substantial justice, is unsustainable.

Issue (e): Treatment of competing arguments and application of precedents

The Income Tax Department argued that no sufficient cause or genuine hardship was demonstrated by the Petitioner, justifying rejection of condonation. However, the Court found the Department's stance unconvincing given the pandemic context and accepted the Petitioner's explanation of technical difficulties.

The Court's reliance on the Action Research for Health and Socio-economic Development case was pivotal, as it provided a detailed framework for considering condonation petitions during the pandemic. The Court also found the Gujarat High Court's precedent instructive in treating the audit report filing as procedural, reinforcing the need for a liberal approach.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that the Commissioner's rejection of the condonation petition was an arbitrary exercise of discretion, not supported by proper application of legal principles or precedents.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held:

"Taking cognizance of well-established principle that when technical consideration and cause of substantial justice are pitted against each other, it is the substantial justice which is to prevail, this Court holds that mere technicality should not have been ground for claim of exemption under Section 12A of the IT Act."

"The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad has not applied his conscientious mind in proper perspective. The refusal to condone the delay invoking power under Section 119(2) of the IT Act is an arbitrary exercise of discretion having regard to the fact-situation."

"The benefit of exemption should not have been denied merely on account of delay in furnishing audit report, which could be produced at a later stage either before the Assessing Officer or the Appellate Authority by assigning sufficient cause."

"The matter is remitted to the said authority concerned to consider audit report in Form 10B furnished under Rule 17B of the Income Tax Rules to claim exemption under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act and in consequence thereof, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) is directed to grant all consequential relief to the petitioner by taking into account the Audit Report in Form 10B as if the same is filed within period specified invoking Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961."

Core principles established include the primacy of substantial justice over technicalities in tax procedural matters, the liberal exercise of discretion under Section 119(2)(b), and recognition of pandemic-related hardships and technical glitches as sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

The final determination was to set aside the Commissioner's order rejecting the condonation petition, remitting the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with the Court's observations, and directing that the audit reports be treated as timely filed for the purpose of exemption claims under Section 12A for the Assessment Years 2020-21 and 2021-22.

---