2025 (7) TMI 682 - HC - Income Tax

Bombay HC condones 24-day delay in filing Form 10B, grants Section 11 IT Act exemption despite late application

Mirae Asset Foundation Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 6, Mumbai & Ors.

Mirae Asset Foundation Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 6, Mumbai & Ors. - 2025:BHC - OS:10234 - DB 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED- Whether the delay of 24 days in filing Form 10B for AY 2021-22 by the Petitioner, a Charitable Trust, can be condoned under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.- Whether the refusal to condone the delay and consequent denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act is justified.- Whether the Form 10B filed by the Petitioner is invalid due to the absence of a digital signature.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISDelay in Filing Form 10B and Condonation under Section 119(2)(b) of the IT ActThe core legal framework involves Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, which empowers the Commissioner to condone delays in certain procedural requirements. The Petitioner sought condonation of a 24-day delay in filing Form 10B, which is mandatory for claiming exemption under Section 11 of the IT Act for charitable trusts.The impugned order refused condonation primarily on two grounds: the delay was not immediately explained and the application for condonation was filed approximately nine months after the delayed filing of Form 10B.The Court examined the facts and noted that the delay in filing Form 10B itself was only 24 days, which is relatively short. Although the condonation application was delayed, the Court emphasized that such a delay should not result in denial of exemption, especially when the delay in filing the form was minimal and the Petitioner is a charitable trust entitled to substantial exemption.The Court relied on the precedent set by the Gujarat High Court in Sarvodaya Charitable Trust v. Income Tax Officer, where it was held that the approach towards condonation of delay in filing Form 10B should be equitable, balanced, and judicious. The Gujarat High Court emphasized that exemption should not be denied merely on the ground of limitation, particularly when the legislature has conferred wide discretionary powers on authorities to condone such delays.Further, the Court referred to the decision in CIT v. Gujarat Oil and Allied Industries Ltd., which held that furnishing of an audit report with the return is procedural and directory in nature, and substantial compliance suffices. This principle was applied analogously to the filing of Form 10B, underscoring that benefit of exemption should not be denied solely due to procedural delays if sufficient cause is shown.The Court concluded that denying exemption in this case would cause genuine hardship to the Petitioner and that the delay was not of such a nature as to warrant refusal of condonation.Validity of Form 10B in Absence of Digital SignatureThe Revenue contended that the Form 10B was invalid as it was not digitally signed, which would render the filing defective and justify denial of exemption.Upon scrutiny of the record, the Court found this contention factually incorrect. The Form 10B bore an acknowledgment number and was digitally signed by an authorized person, with details including the PAN, IP address, date, time, and certifying authority clearly recorded in the documentation.This factual finding negated the Revenue's argument, establishing that the Form 10B was validly filed and digitally signed in compliance with statutory requirements.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS- 'The approach in the cases of the present type should be equitious, balancing and judicious. Technically, strictly and liberally speaking, the respondent no.2 might be justified in denying the exemption under section 12 of the Act by rejecting such condonation application, but an assessee, a public charitable trust past 30 years who substantially satisfies the condonation for availing such exemption, should not be denied the same merely on the bar of limitation especially when the legislature has conferred wide discretionary powers to condone such delay on the authorities concerned.'- The Court held that the delay of 24 days in filing Form 10B is not substantial enough to deny exemption under Section 11 of the IT Act, and that delay in filing condonation application after 9 months should not be a bar to relief when genuine hardship is caused.- The Court reaffirmed that procedural requirements such as filing of Form 10B and audit reports are directory and substantial compliance suffices; hence, exemption benefits should not be denied solely on procedural technicalities.- The Court conclusively found that the Form 10B was digitally signed and validly filed, rejecting the Revenue's contention to the contrary.- The impugned order refusing condonation of delay and denying exemption was quashed and set aside, and the delay was condoned.