TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 658
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment Year for which such Application is made. The Circular also makes it clear that this time limit would apply for any Applications that are filed on or after the date of the Circular, namely, 18th November 2024. The CIT (Exemptions) dismissed the Application filed by the Petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) relying upon this Circular because admittedly, application seeking condonation of delay was filed after 18th November 2024 and was beyond the period of three years from the end of the Assessment Year in question. The second challenge laid in the above Petition is to paragraph 3 of the Circular itself, which mandates that no Application for condonation of delay shall be entertained if it is beyond the period of three years from the end of the Assessment Year in question. 3. The Petitioner is an educational trust and is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The Petitioner has been carrying out educational activities since 1972. It is running a school and college in the Ghatkopar West area of Mumbai city and provides education from nursery till class twelve. At present about 3000 students are studying in the Petitioner's institution. It is registered under section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 16/2024 dated 18th November 2024 and attention was drawn to the powers for condonation of delay. 10. Considering the mail received, on 04th February 2025, the Petitioner filed an application with Respondent No. 1 for condonation of delay in filing of return of income. It was explained that the Petitioner filed the return of income on 15th February 2021 and on the same day it also filed Form 10B. It was submitted that the due date to file the audit report was one month prior to the date of filing of the return of income and accordingly, the report was filed late by 31 days. The Petitioner submitted that such delay occurred because of difficulties faced due to COVID lockdown. Further, it was also submitted that AY 2020-21 was the first year, when the due date to upload audit report was preponed by one month from the date of filing of the return of income. This change went inadvertently unnoticed. It was submitted that the return was processed u/s 143(1)(a) and the demand was raised of Rs. 78,51,920/- including interest, which has caused serious hardships to the Petitioner. 11. This application for condonation of delay was disposed of vide the impugned order dated 11th February....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioner was waiting for redressal of its grievance in this regard. Till such time, neither the Chartered Accountant nor the trustees were aware or had any belief that the denial of exemption was because of late filing of Form 10B. It is, therefore, averred that no attempts were made to rectify the late filing of Form 10B by about 31 days. The Petitioner and the Chartered Accountant became aware for the first time that the deduction was denied due to late filing of the audit report, when they received an email on 22nd January 2025 that the reason for denial of benefit under section 11 is because of late filing of the audit report. Further, it was in the same email, that the Petitioner was advised to get the delay condoned under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. It is averred that immediately thereafter, the Petitioner filed the application under consideration. 14. We were satisfied with the reasons given in the additional affidavit justifying the delay in filing of the application of condonation of delay before Respondent No. 1. It is apparent that until the mail received on 22nd January 2025, the Petitioner was unaware that the exemption under section 11 was denied due to belated fil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er submitted that the Petitioner cannot claim ignorance of law. He submitted that taking into consideration the difficulties caused due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the due dates for filing return and tax audit report were extended from time to time. On the basis of the additional affidavit of the Respondent No. 1, he prayed that the Petitioner be relegated to the CBDT which will hear the Petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B. 18. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 19. We find that due to the clarification issued by the Respondents that an application for condonation of delay in filing of Form 9A/10/10B/10BB beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year can be made before the CBDT, there is no further requirement for us to deal with the challenge to paragraph 3 of the Circular No. 16/2024 dated 18th November 2024. 20. Having said that, in the facts of the present case, we do not deem it appropriate to send the Petitioner to the CBDT. This is because we are satisfied that there is a reasonable cause for delay of 31 days in filing of Form No. 10B by the Petitioner. Firstly, the delay is merely of 31 days. Further, we no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s complied with all the conditions mentioned in Circular dated 12-10-1993. The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay to enable the authorities to do substantive justice to the parties by disposing of the matters on merit. The expression "genuine" has received a liberal meaning in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court referred to hereinabove and while considering this aspect, the authorities are expected to bare in mind that ordinarily the applicant, applying for condonation of delay does not stand to benefit by lodging its claim late. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a nondeliberate delay. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on accoun....