2025 (8) TMI 1441

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Sukhsagar Syal, a/w Adv. Sameer Dalal,. For the Respondent: Adv. Prathamesh P. Bhosle,. P. C. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The above Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash and set aside an order dated 31st March, 2025 passed by Respondent No. 1 rejecting the Petitioner's application for ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f filing of the original return. In the interregnum, the Petitioner preferred an Application for condonation of delay before Respondent No. 1 under section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act on 27th November, 2018. In this Application, the Petitioner sought for a condonation of delay of 522 days in filing Form No. 10. 4. Respondent No. 1, by the impugned order, refused to condone the delay on the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ees of the Petitioner-Trust passed a resolution to accumulate a sum of Rs. 1,73,88,050 in a meeting held on 15th October, 2016. They also signed Form No. 10 in the paper format which was tabled at the said meeting. 6. In fact, in the affidavit it is stated that while presenting the accounts for the A.Y. 2016-17, the Chartered Accountant brought to the attention of the Trustees the fact that the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of the inadvertent error of its Chartered Accountant. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the delay ought to be condoned. We accordingly quash and set aside the impugned order dated 31st March, 2025 passed by Respondent No. 1 under section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act. 9. Now that the impugned order is quashed, we also hereby condone the delay on the ....