2025 (10) TMI 1158 - HC - Income Tax

Refusal to condone 16-day delay in filing Form-10B set aside; fresh s.119(2)(b) consideration directed for charitable trust

Delhi Maharashtriya Educational And Cultural Society Through Authorised Representative Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Delhi & Ors.

The HC set aside the respondents' refusal to condone a 16-day delay in filing Form-10B and directed fresh consideration of the s.119(2)(b) application. ... Exemption u/s 11 - disallowing the exemption by stating that the return was filed with the purported delay of 16 days in filing the audit report in the prescribed Form 10B - condonation of delay in filing of Form-10(b) under Section 119(2)(b) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19, has been dismissed - delay that occurred on the part of the accountant HELD THAT:- It is the case of the petitioner that, it had disclosed the details of audit report dated 30.09.2018 in the return. After filing of the return, on 15.11.2018, the petitioner came to know that the annexure in the form of audit report was not uploaded with the return. This resulted in the petitioner filing the audit report under Form-10(b) for the AY 2018-19 with a delay of 16 days (on IT portal) on 16.11.2018. On 23.03.2020, the respondent passed the assessment order u/s 143(1) of the Act without granting the exemption claimed by the petitioner under Section 11 and 12 of the Act. The exemption was disallowed by stating that the return was filed with a delay of 16 days in filing of audit report in the prescribed Form-10(b), the same resulting in a demand against the petitioner. On 24.12.2021, the respondent no. 2 passed an order issued under Section 154 of the Act for rectifying the intimation order dated 23.03.2020 affirming the rejection of exemption under Section 11 of the Act. Be that as it may, the petitioner filed an application under Section 119(2) seeking condonation of delay in filing Form 10(b). The same was rejected by the respondents. Facts clearly enumerate that the return was filed within the time stipulated i.e., on 31.10.2018. It is the case of the petitioner that a reference to the audit report dated 30.09.2018 was made in the ITR and that it was only on 15.11.2018; it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that the audit report has not been uploaded, so in that sense a delay on 16 days had occurred, surely in filing the audit report is a bona fide mistake. The averments made in the application are primarily that the audit report could not be uploaded because of the mistake on the part of the Tax Professional/Auditor. The ground for the respondents to reject the application is primarily relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rewa Coalfield Ltd. [1961 (5) TMI 54 - SUPREME COURT] held that every delay needs to be explained with cogent evidences. The respondents have also stated that even otherwise the intimation under 143(1) of the Act was passed on 23.03.2020, whereas the appellant/petitioner has filed the application seeking condonation of delay on 02.03.2022, i.e., after two years which again reflects casual approach of the petitioner/assessee. The law in this regard is well settled, i.e., any mistake on the part of the Auditor should not result in hardship or prejudice to the assessee. Petitioner is justified in relying upon the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Sarvodaya Charitable Trust [2021 (1) TMI 214 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] held 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 condition 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 order passed by the respondent u/s 119(2)(b) is set aside. The respondents shall pass a fresh order on the application filed by the petitioner/applicant u/s 119(2)(b). 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED Whether the income-tax authority was justified in refusing to condone a bona fide delay of 16 days in filing the tax audit report in Form 10B under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act where the return was filed within the extended time and the audit report was uploaded before any final action on the return. Whether an inadvertent omission or mistake by the assessee's professional (auditor/tax practitioner) can constitute a reasonable cause for condonation under Section 119(2)(b), and whether such condonation ought to be denied as a matter of principle or discretion where there is no mala fide and the substantive conditions for exemption under Sections 11-13 are otherwise satisfied. Whether filing Form 10B is purely a procedural requirement that, if later complied with (prior to substantive adverse action), should permit the assessee to obtain the substantive exemption under Sections 11 and 12, and whether denial on technical grounds results in undue hardship or frustrates the benevolent object of those provisions. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Power and scope of Section 119(2)(b) to condone delay in filing Form 10B Legal framework: Section 119(2)(b) empowers the Board to authorise income-tax authorities to admit claims for exemptions/deductions/relief after prescribed periods 'for avoiding genuine hardship' and to deal with them on merits; delegated guidance requires satisfaction that the applicant was prevented by reasonable cause from timely filing Form 10B. Precedent treatment: The Court surveyed several High Court and Supreme Court decisions holding that Section 119(2)(b) must be exercised to avoid genuine hardship, but not as a routine privilege; delays must be explained with cogent evidence (citing the principle that 'every delay needs to be explained'). Other decisions endorse a balanced, equitable approach where long-standing compliant charitable trusts are not to be penalised for bona fide professional errors. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found the statutory power is discretionary and directed at genuine hardship; the discretion must be exercised reasonably, balancing the need for statutory discipline with the object of not causing injustice. Where the return was filed within time, the audit report was prepared within time, and the delay (16 days) was due to an inadvertent omission by the tax professional, the facts point to bona fide error rather than mala fide or systemic neglect. The Court emphasised that procedural timelines ensure regulation but should not defeat substantive rights when reasonable cause exists and substantive conditions for exemption are met. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - authorities may condone short, bona fide delays in filing Form 10B under Section 119(2)(b) where reasonable cause is shown and substantive entitlement exists; discretionary refusal solely because the cause is an agent's error is not inevitably justified. Obiter - general observations on the need for cogent evidence for delays and the range of cases cited illustrating equitable outcomes. Conclusion: The Court set aside the impugned refusal and directed the authority to re-exercise discretion afresh within a specified period, holding that the initial rejection for an inadvertent professional error was not sustainable without fresh consideration of merits consistent with relevant precedents and the CBDT guidance. Issue 2 - Whether an auditor/tax professional's inadvertence can constitute reasonable cause Legal framework: Reasonable cause is assessed in the context of Section 119(2)(b) and delegated circulars which require that the authority be satisfied that the applicant was prevented by reasonable cause from filing Form 10B on time. Precedent treatment: The Court relied on multiple High Court authorities and principles from the Supreme Court that an assessee should not ordinarily suffer for the inadvertence or neglect of an agent (advocate/accountant), and that bona fide professional errors have been accepted as reasonable cause in comparable circumstances. Countervailing authority emphasises the need for cogent explanation and that statutory time limits cannot be routinely relaxed absent compelling reasons. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted that professional error may constitute reasonable cause if it is bona fide, the assessee otherwise demonstrates diligence and compliance, and there is no mala fide. The Court noted authorities where long-standing charitable entities with consistent compliance records were afforded equitable relief. The absence of mala fide and the fact that the audit report existed and was uploaded before substantive adverse action weighed in favour of treating the professional's error as reasonable cause for the short delay. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - inadvertence by an auditor/tax professional can amount to reasonable cause for condonation under Section 119(2)(b) where it is bona fide, supported by circumstances (prompt rectification, consistent past compliance), and no prejudice to the revenue is shown. Obiter - emphasis on limits to this principle where delays are inordinate, unexplained, or where the assessee has been dilatory in seeking relief. Conclusion: The Court directed reconsideration of the condonation application, recognising that the admitted 16-day delay attributable to the tax professional could prima facie be a reasonable cause meriting condonation on merits. Issue 3 - Procedural requirement versus substantive entitlement to exemption under Sections 11-13 Legal framework: Sections 11-13 govern exemption for charitable/religious trusts; Form 10B is a statutory procedural requirement to be filed with returns to substantiate claims for exemption/deduction. Delegated instructions and judicial decisions address whether late filing of Form 10B extinguishes substantive entitlement. Precedent treatment: Several High Courts have held that filing Form 10B is procedural and that late filing, if condoned or if compliance is subsequently completed before substantive determination, should not be fatal to substantive exemptions. Other authorities underscore that procedural non-compliance may legitimately lead to denial unless condonation is properly granted. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that when the audit report existed, the return was filed on time, and the report was uploaded before the department's processing/intimation, the delay affected only procedure and not the satisfaction of substantive conditions. Denying exemption on a narrow procedural lapse without considering equitable relief would frustrate the benevolent legislative purpose and cause undue hardship by diverting funds meant for charitable purposes; therefore, procedural non-compliance warrants equitable consideration under Section 119(2)(b). Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where substantive conditions for exemption are met and Form 10B is filed shortly after an inadvertent omission and prior to substantive adverse action, the procedural lapse should not be used to deny the exemption without proper exercise of discretion under Section 119(2)(b). Obiter - policy warnings that such powers should not be exercised routinely to the prejudice of statutory discipline. Conclusion: The Court concluded that the authority must re-examine the matter in light of the procedural/substantive distinction and the equities, and to decide whether condonation should be granted so that substantive exemption claims are determined on merits rather than defeated by a minor procedural lapse. Disposition and procedural direction The Court set aside the impugned order refusing condonation under Section 119(2)(b) and directed the income-tax authority to pass a fresh order on the petitioner's condonation application within eight weeks from receipt of the judgment, proceeding in accordance with law and relevant guidelines; the petition was disposed of accordingly.