Procedural lapse in audit form filing cannot by itself defeat educational exemption where substantive compliance is otherwise shown.

An approved educational institution's exemption claim under section 10(23C)(vi) could not be rejected solely because it filed Form 10B instead of Form 10BB. The Tribunal treated the wrong form as a procedural lapse, noting that the return was filed on time, the audit report existed within the prescribed period, and the revenue did not dispute the institution's approved status or the audit itself. It applied the principle that a genuine exemption claim should not fail for a technical defect when substantive compliance is otherwise shown. The matter was remitted for verification of the remaining substantive conditions, with exemption to be allowed if those conditions are satisfied.

---

---

Issues: Whether the exemption claim under section 10(23C)(vi) could be denied solely because the assessee filed Form 10B instead of Form 10BB, and whether the procedural lapse required the matter to be examined for substantive compliance.

Analysis: The assessee was an approved educational institution, had filed its return within time, and had obtained an audit report within the prescribed period, though in the wrong form. The Tribunal treated the filing of the incorrect form as a procedural mistake and relied on the principle that a genuine claim should not be rejected for a technical lapse when the substantive conditions for exemption are otherwise met. It also noted that the assessee had filed the correct form later and had sought condonation, while the revenue had not disputed the institution's approved status, the audit itself, or timely filing of the return. Applying the principle that procedural law is meant to aid justice, the Tribunal held that the denial of exemption only on this technical ground was not justified. The matter was therefore sent back for verification of the remaining substantive conditions, with a direction that, if satisfied, the exemption be allowed.

Conclusion: The procedural error in filing Form 10B instead of Form 10BB could not by itself justify denial of exemption under section 10(23C)(vi); the assessee was entitled to have its substantive eligibility verified and, if fulfilled, to receive the exemption.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed in part, with the denial of exemption on a purely technical ground set aside and the matter remitted for verification of substantive compliance.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory exemption cannot be denied merely for an inadvertent procedural lapse in filing the wrong audit-report form when the assessee has otherwise satisfied the substantive conditions and the required audit compliance is demonstrably in place.

---