2025 (10) TMI 584 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee's charitable income and capital expenditure claims allowed after Form 10B uploaded before CPC intimation under s.143(1)(a)

Masoomeen Education Society Versus CIT (A), Sangli

ITAT PUNE (AT) held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the assessee's claim for application of income and capital expenditure for charitable purposes ... Denial of application of income incurred for charitable purposes - non furnishing of audit report on Form 10B within the prescribed time limit - HELD THAT:- Since the Audit Report for A.Y. 2019-20 already stands uploaded on 31.12.2019 which is much prior to the passing of the impugned order as well as the passing of the intimation u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act by CPC, Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the Audit Report and not allowing the claim of assessee of application incurred for charitable purpose. Accordingly finding of the CIT(A) is reversed and grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed and Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is directed to allow the claim of the assessee for application of income and Capital expenditure for charitable purposes. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether delay in filing the appeal of 323 days is sufficiently explained so as to justify condonation of delay. 2. Whether the Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (CPC) and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) could refuse the benefit of application of income under section 11 (and alternatively exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad)) solely on the ground that audit report in Form No.10B was not filed within the prescribed time. 3. Whether filing/uploading Form No.10B after the statutory due date but before or during appellate proceedings (or prior to conclusion of assessment action) is directory rather than mandatory, and therefore whether belated filing ought to be considered for allowing benefits under sections 11/12. 4. Whether the CPC's failure to consider the audit report uploaded in response to its own communication vitiates the disallowance made in the intimation under section 143(1). ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Condonation of 323-day delay in filing the appeal Legal framework: Procedural law concerning condonation of delay in filing appeals requires demonstration of sufficient cause for the delay; judicial precedents guide permissible grounds. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal followed the established tests in leading decisions recognizing reliance on agents/consultants and non-communication as sufficient cause where delay is not intentional. Interpretation and reasoning: The assessee showed that the impugned order was received by the earlier tax consultant by e-mail and there was non-communication to the assessee; the assessee depends on tax consultants for filing appeals. On hearing and perusal of records the Tribunal found the cause sufficient and the delay not intentional. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - delay condoned where non-communication by tax consultant and genuine reliance established; this forms the operative principle applied. Conclusion: Delay of 323 days is condoned and the appeal admitted for adjudication. Issue 2 - Denial of benefit under section 11 for non-furnishing Form No.10B within prescribed time Legal framework: Sections 11 and 12 provide exemption/application of income for charitable purposes subject to prescribed conditions; Form No.10B is the audit report used to evidence application of income. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal applied and relied upon coordinate and higher judicial decisions holding that filing of Form No.10B is procedural/directory and benefit under section 11 should not be denied merely because of delay in furnishing Form No.10B, particularly where the assessee holds valid registration under section 12A and the report is filed before conclusion of appellate proceedings or assessment action. Interpretation and reasoning: Facts show the assessee is a registered charitable trust, claimed application of income totaling Rs.39,95,991 (administrative expenses Rs.35,20,913 and capital expenditure Rs.4,75,078), returned nil income, and uploaded Form No.10B on 31.12.2019 in response to CPC communication dated 04.12.2019. The CPC nevertheless passed the intimation under section 143(1)(a) dated 04.03.2020 without considering the uploaded audit report. The Tribunal noted established authority that where Form No.10B is uploaded belatedly but during appellate or assessment proceedings, the report should be considered and benefits under sections 11/12 allowed. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where a registered charitable trust files Form No.10B belatedly but before conclusion of appellate proceedings (or where the report is uploaded in response to CPC defects before intimation is finalized), the filing is directory and benefits under sections 11/12 ought not to be denied solely on timing. Obiter - discussion of specific technical portal errors in other cases is persuasive but ancillary. Conclusion: The CPC and Ld. CIT(A) erred in denying the benefit under section 11 solely for delay in uploading Form No.10B; the audit report uploaded on 31.12.2019 ought to have been considered and the claim allowed. Issue 3 - Nature of Form No.10B filing: directory versus mandatory and effect of belated filing Legal framework: Distinction between mandatory substantive requirements and procedural/directory requirements governs whether non-compliance results in loss of substantive benefit. Precedent treatment: Tribunal followed decisions (including coordinate benches and High Court precedents) that have held filing of Form No.10B to be procedural/directory; technical portal issues or belated filing do not automatically extinguish entitlement to section 11/12 benefits where registration under section 12A exists and report is ultimately filed. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal applied those precedents to the facts: the assessee had valid registration, incurred qualifying expenditures, and uploaded the audit report prior to the CPC intimation; therefore the requirement was directory and could not be used as the sole basis to deny exemption/application of income. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Form No.10B requirement is directory in nature for purposes of securing benefit under sections 11/12 where the assessee is otherwise registered and files the report before final adjudication; denial solely for belated filing is impermissible. Obiter - comparative references to technical failures on the portal are supportive but not essential to the holding. Conclusion: Filing of Form No.10B is directory in the circumstances; belated uploading in response to CPC communication warranted consideration and allowance of the claim. Issue 4 - CPC's failure to consider audit report uploaded in response to its communication and remedial direction Legal framework: Administrative fairness and requirement that orders be passed after considering materials on record, particularly documents uploaded in response to defect communications. Precedent treatment: Consistent with authority that appellate or assessing authorities should consider belatedly filed but relevant audit reports when deciding entitlement to exemption. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found CPC erred by not considering the audit report uploaded on 31.12.2019 despite having given the assessee 30 days to remove defects; the non-consideration led to a denial in the section 143(1) intimation. Given the report was uploaded prior to the impugned order and that authorities have co-terminus powers to consider such material during appellate review, the denial was unsustainable. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - an assessing authority/CPC must consider an audit report uploaded in response to its defect notice before passing an intimation; failure to do so vitiates denial based solely on non-furnishing of Form No.10B. Conclusion and direction: The Tribunal reversed the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), allowed the assessee's grounds, and directed the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to allow application of income for charitable purposes of Rs.35,20,913 and capital expenditure of Rs.4,75,078 (total Rs.39,95,991) in accordance with sections 11/12 as claimed.