Petition allowed; 31-day delay in filing Form No.10B for AY 2020-21 condoned under s.119(2)(b), s.11 exemption preserved

HC allowed petition, quashing the order under s.119(2)(b) and condoning a 31-day delay in filing Form No.10B for AY 2020-21. The court accepted bona fide reasons - the due date for the audit report had been preponed that year, the report was filed with the return, and COVID-19 lockdowns and administrative closures contributed to the oversight - and noted prior CBDT date extensions. Refusal to condone would have caused genuine hardship by denying s.11 exemption and creating a demand; accordingly the delay was condoned and the impugned order set aside.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether the order under Section 119(2)(b) rejecting an application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B, on the basis of CBDT Circular No.16/2024 para 3 imposing a three-year bar, is legally sustainable.

2. Whether paragraph 3 of CBDT Circular No.16/2024 (prohibiting entertaining applications for condonation of delay beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year) is open to judicial challenge or inapplicable where field authorities are restricted by the Circular.

3. Whether this Court may itself condone the short delay in filing Form 10B under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, having regard to facts including pandemic-related disruptions and a change in the statutory due date for filing the audit report.

4. Whether, upon condonation of delay, the return must be reprocessed and the exemption under Section 11 given effect to.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of rejecting condonation application by reliance on CBDT Circular No.16/2024 para 3

Legal framework: Section 119(2)(b) confers power to condone delay for disposal of matters in the interest of substantial justice; CBDT circulars are administrative instructions guiding field authorities.

Precedent treatment: This Court relied on prior decisions recognizing liberal construction of "genuine hardship" under Section 119(2)(b) and treating procedural compliance as directory in appropriate cases (citing earlier Bench rulings reproduced in the judgment).

Interpretation and reasoning: The CIT (Exemptions) relied on para 3 of Circular No.16/2024 to refuse the condonation application because the application was filed after the Circular's effective date and beyond three years from the end of the assessment year. The Court examined whether the Circular precludes exercise of discretion by the Tribunal/Court and whether the field authority correctly applied the Circular to the facts. The Court accepted the factual contention that the application was filed after 18-11-2024 and beyond three years but observed that the Circular, as clarified by the Respondent, restricts field authorities and permits applications beyond three years to be made to the CBDT itself.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio-A field authority's refusal based solely on the Circular, when the Circular directs matters beyond three years to CBDT, does not finally resolve an assessee's entitlement; the Circular does not oust power to condone when Court is satisfied of reasonable cause. Obiter-Observations on administrative scope of Circular vis-à-vis CBDT and field authorities.

Conclusion: The Court found no residual requirement to decide the broader challenge to paragraph 3 once Respondents clarified that applications beyond three years may be filed before CBDT; however, the Court proceeded to exercise its supervisory power in the facts of the case rather than remit to CBDT.

Issue 2: Challenge to paragraph 3 of Circular No.16/2024 (three-year bar) and availability of remedy before CBDT

Legal framework: CBDT circulars can prescribe administrative timelines; their intra-departmental effect and the availability of alternate remedies (e.g., approach to CBDT) affect justiciability.

Precedent treatment: The Court referenced administrative practice permitting CBDT to entertain certain applications and the general principle that directives confined to field authorities do not eliminate other avenues of relief.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Respondents' subsequent affidavit clarified that the three-year restriction is directed at field authorities and that CBDT retains competence to entertain applications filed beyond three years. Given this clarification, the Court held that there was no need to adjudicate the vires of paragraph 3 itself in this proceeding.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio-Where a departmental circular channels applications beyond a specified period to the CBDT, denial by a field authority cannot be treated as the final or exclusive remedy; the departmental clarification obviated the necessity of judicial review of paragraph 3 in the present petition. Obiter-The Court did not pronounce on the broader legality of the three-year bar in absolute terms.

Conclusion: The challenge to paragraph 3 was not decided because the respondents' clarification supplied an intra-departmental remedy (application to CBDT); therefore, the Court declined to strike down paragraph 3 on the present facts.

Issue 3: Whether the Court may condone the 31-day delay in filing Form 10B under Section 119(2)(b)

Legal framework: Section 119(2)(b) empowers authorities to condone delay for doing substantial justice; precedents endorse a liberal, justice-oriented approach where delay is bona fide and denial would cause genuine hardship. Procedural provisions concerning audit report filing are, in relevant authorities, treated as directory where substantial compliance and bona fide causes exist.

Precedent treatment: The Court relied on its own prior rulings and analogous High Court decisions holding that short, bona fide delays in filing Form 10B may be condoned to avoid substantial injustice (examples reproduced in judgment). The Court cited Sitaldas K. Motwani and Mirae Asset Foundation decisions supporting liberal condonation where hardship would result.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court analyzed facts: the audit report was filed 31 days late and was attached to the return; the assessment year in question introduced a change preponing the audit report due date by one month; the petitioner operated a school during the COVID-19 pandemic with administrative disruption and intermittent internet connectivity; the intimation under Section 143(1) did not specify late filing as the reason and stood unnoticed until rectification/grievance proceedings were pending; the petitioner promptly filed for condonation on receiving explicit communication in January 2025. Considering the minimal delay, change in law effective that year, pandemic-related operational difficulties, and the substantial hardship (denial of exemption and large demand), the Court found the reasons bona fide. The Court applied the principle that refusal to condone may defeat substantial justice and that there is no presumption of deliberate or mala fide delay.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio-A short, inadvertent delay (31 days) in filing Form 10B occasioned by bona fide pandemic-related disruption and an unnoticed change in statutory due date, coupled with substantial hardship if relief is denied, justifies condonation under Section 119(2)(b). Obiter-General observations on pandemic extensions and directory nature of procedural audit report filing in similar circumstances.

Conclusion: The Court exercised its discretion to condone the 31-day delay in filing Form 10B for the assessment year in question under Section 119(2)(b), finding genuine hardship and bona fide explanation.

Issue 4: Consequence of condonation-reprocessing of return and grant of exemption under Section 11

Legal framework: If delay is condoned and requisite form is treated as filed within time, departmental machinery must reprocess returns in accordance with law.

Precedent treatment: Past decisions endorse reprocessing and giving effect to claims once procedural defaults are condoned.

Interpretation and reasoning: Given condonation, Form 10B is to be treated as filed within time; denial of exemption arose solely from alleged late filing of Form 10B; therefore, the respondent must reprocess the return to reflect entitlement under Section 11 and cancel the demand.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio-Condonation necessitates that the return be reprocessed and the exemption under Section 11 be considered on merits as if Form 10B were timely filed. Obiter-None additional.

Conclusion: The Court directed reprocessing of the return in accordance with law giving effect to the filing of Form 10B within time and set aside the impugned order; no order as to costs.

---