TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1138
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") rejecting the Petitioner's application dated 8th March 2023 filed on 16th March 2023 seeking a condonation of delay of 51 days in filing Form No. 10. Consequently, the exemption/deduction claimed by the Petitioner under Section 11 of the Act has been denied to the Petitioner, which is a Charitable Trust. 3. The Petitioner is a Charitable Trust established exclusively for medical purposes and is registered as a Public Charitable Trust under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, with the office of the Charity Commissioner, Greater Mumbai, vide PTR No. F-124(Bom) dated 21st May 1953. Since then, it has been regularly filing its Return of Income and complying with the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Petitioner on 28th December 2022, resulting in a delay of about 51 days. Since there was a delay in filing Form No. 10 the assessment for A.Y. 2022-23, was completed under Section 143(1) of the Act, disallowing the exemption under Section 11 claimed by the Petitioner. 6. Since there was a delay in filing Form No. 10, the Petitioner filed an application on 16th March 2023 before Respondent No. 1 seeking a condonation of delay in filing the said Form. It was submitted that the Petitioner could upload the said Form No. 10 only by 28th December 2022, i.e. 51 days after the due date. The Petitioner could not file the said Form No. 10 in due time as the former accountant of the Petitioner, who handled the accounts and accounting matters,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd that the Petitioner has not been able to adduce any reasonable cause which prevented it from filing Form No. 10 for accumulation of surplus within the specified date. 9. In this factual backdrop, the Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Respondent No. 1 has not doubted or denied any of the facts as stated by the Petitioner. In fact, there is not even a mention that the delay of 51 days is caused because of any willful/intentional default on the part of the Petitioner. The fact that the former accountant of the Petitioner who handled the accounts and accounting matters had left the job during the second Covid wave in 2021, and the Petitioner appointed a part-time accountant who also left the job, and they managed to appoint a new ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-B etc. cannot be fatal and cannot be the basis for denial of deduction/exemption. He also pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has rejected the SLP filed by the Department against the said judgment. 12. It was contended by the learned Counsel that it is a fairly settled legal position that filing of statement of accumulation in Form No. 10 is directory in nature i.e. the requirement of furnishing Form No. 10 by the due date is merely procedural and the benefits of exemption/deduction under Section 11(2) of the Act cannot be denied only on account of the delay in filing of the said Form No. 10, especially when such form was available at the time of processing/assessment. 13. On the other hand, the Counsel for the Respondents, ho....