Exemption Restored u/ss 11 and 12; Delayed Form 10B Held Curable, Not Ground to Deny Relief

The ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the assessee-trust's appeal and restored exemption under sections 11 and 12. It held that the delay in filing Form 10B was a procedural lapse and not a substantive defect, since the statutory requirement of obtaining and furnishing an audit report was ultimately complied with during the pendency of first appellate proceedings before the CIT(A). As the trust otherwise fulfilled the conditions for exemption and Form 10B was on record before conclusion of appellate proceedings, denial of exemption solely on the ground of belated filing was unjustified. The Tribunal treated delayed filing of Form 10B as a curable defect that cannot extinguish the assessee's statutory entitlement to exemption.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether exemption under sections 11 and 12 can be denied solely on the ground of delayed filing of audit report in Form 10B, when the assessee has otherwise complied with substantive conditions and Form 10B is filed before completion of appellate proceedings.

1.2 Whether the requirement of furnishing Form 10B within the timeline prescribed under section 12A(1)(b) is mandatory in nature or merely procedural/directory so as to render delay a curable defect.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 & 2: Effect of delayed filing of Form 10B on eligibility for exemption under sections 11 and 12; nature of requirement to furnish Form 10B

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.1 The Court examined the scheme of sections 11 and 12 read with section 12A(1)(b), which requires that where the total income of a trust exceeds the prescribed limit, accounts are to be audited and the audit report furnished in the prescribed Form 10B within the prescribed time. The scope of section 143(1) and the system-driven processing by CPC were noted in the context of adjustments made for non-filing of Form 10B. The Court also adverted to section 11(7) regarding mutual exclusivity of exemption under section 10(23C) and registration under section 12A.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.2 It was undisputed that the assessee was a registered charitable trust, had maintained regular books of account, got its accounts audited, filed its return of income within the extended due date, and claimed exemption under sections 11 and 12. The sole reason for denial of exemption in the intimation under section 143(1) was that Form 10B had not been filed within the prescribed time; instead, Form 10BB was filed under a mistaken belief that exemption under section 10(23C) was available.

2.3 The assessee subsequently filed Form 10B on 18.12.2024, i.e., after the prescribed time but prior to completion of first appellate proceedings. The Court considered whether such delay was fatal to the claim for exemption.

2.4 The Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Anjana Foundation, wherein it was held that benefit of section 11 cannot be denied solely for failure to file audit report in Form 10B, as furnishing of the report is a procedural requirement.

2.5 The Court further relied on binding decisions of the jurisdictional High Court, including Association of Indian Panelboard Manufacturers v. DCIT and Parul Mahila Pragati Mandal v. Income-tax Officer (Exemption), which held that: (i) obtaining the audit report is a substantive condition, but the time and mode of furnishing it are purely procedural; (ii) non-filing or non-enclosure of the audit report with the return is at best a procedural omission; and (iii) even if Form 10B is filed at a later stage, the assessee remains entitled to claim exemption under section 11.

2.6 The Court noted that the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal, in Shree Vardhman Stanakvasi Jain Shravak Trust v. ITO and Shree Swaminarayan Charitable Trust v. ITO, had applied the above principles to hold that delayed filing of Form 10B is a curable defect, directory in nature, and cannot be used to deny exemption where the audit report is available during assessment or appellate proceedings.

2.7 Applying these authorities, the Court held that once the substantive requirement of audit is fulfilled and the audit report in Form 10B is brought on record before completion of appellate proceedings, mere delay in uploading or furnishing the form within the statutory timeline under section 12A(1)(b) cannot extinguish the assessee's right to exemption under sections 11 and 12.

2.8 The Court rejected the approach that the system-driven nature of CPC processing or absence of express condonation power with CPC or the first appellate authority could justify denial of substantive exemption, in face of binding judicial pronouncements treating the Form 10B requirement as procedural and the delay as curable during appellate proceedings.

Conclusions

2.9 The delay in furnishing Form 10B is a procedural/technical lapse and constitutes a curable defect; it does not have the effect of disqualifying an otherwise eligible charitable trust from claiming exemption under sections 11 and 12.

2.10 Since Form 10B was filed before conclusion of the appellate proceedings and all substantive conditions for exemption under sections 11 and 12 stood satisfied, the exemption could not be denied merely for delayed filing of Form 10B.

2.11 The order of the appellate authority upholding the adjustment under section 143(1) and denial of exemption under sections 11 and 12 was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to allow the exemption in full as claimed in the return of income.

---