2025 (3) TMI 1012

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Having regard to the issue involved in this petition which is in a very narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing. 3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Ms. Maithili Mehta waives services of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent. 4. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 19.12.2019 passed under section 119 (2) (b) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (For short "the Act") whereby the application filed by the petitioner to condone the delay in filing Form No. 10B for Assessment Year 2017-2018 is rejected. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of furnishing the return under section 139 (1) of the Act i.e. 07.11.2017. 11. The petitioner thereafter preferred an application on 24.04.2019 praying for condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10 before the respondent. 12. The respondent however, issued a show cause notice dated 09.05.2019 to the petitioner to show cause as to why the condonation application should not be rejected on the ground that no genuine hardship has been shown in the said application. 13. Pursuant to such show cause notice, the respondent addressed another letter dated 24.05.2019 reiterating its stand and requested the respondent to condone the delay in filing Form No. 10. 14. The petitioner thereafter through its Chartered Accountant addressed a letter dated ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etitioner to pay the demand of Rs. 3, 22, 950/- on or before 27.01.2020. 19. In response to such notice, the petitioner filed stay application on 27.01.2020 before the Assessing Officer requesting him to keep the entire demand in abeyance till the decision is taken by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 20. The petitioner thereafter once again addressed a letter dated 02.03.2020 to the respondent requesting him to reconsider his decision of rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10. 21. The respondent however, vide letter dated 12.03.2020 rejected the request for reconsideration of order dated 19.12.2019. 22. The petitioner therefore, once again vide letter dated 16.09.2020 requested the respondent to co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ubstantive exemption cannot be withdrawn because of minor technical lapse and delayed compliance of such requirements which are purely procedural and directory in nature and therefore, the benefit available under section 11 (2) of the Act being substantial in nature cannot be withdrawn merely because there is a minor delay in filing Form No. 10. 27. On the other hand, learned advocate Ms. Maithili D. Mehta for the respondent submitted the petitioner had filed income tax return for AY 2017-2018 on 28.03.2018 and Form No. 10 for AY 2017-2018 was e-filed on 27.03.2018 with a delay of approximately 136 days though the due date for filing of the above documents was 07.11.2017 and therefore, the respondent department issued notice under section ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ement of filing of Form 10 before the due date cannot be considered as a procedural requirement but is to be strictly followed since the said requirement is distinctly mentioned under section 11 (2) of the Act. 31. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the documents on record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has explained in detail the cause for late filing of Form 10B. In similar circumstances, this Court in case of Parshwanath Bhakti Vihar Jain Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) reported in (2024) 166 taxmann.com 732 (Gujarat) relying upon the decision in case of Sarvodaya Chaitable Trust v. ITO (Exemption) reported in (2021) 125 taxmann.com 75 has held as under: "33. Having....