AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1508
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner filed its Return of Income for A.Y. 2016-17 on 15th October 2016, declaring nil income after claiming accumulation of Rs. 1,13,51,040/- under Section 11(2) of the Act. 3. The accounts of the Petitioner were duly audited, and the fact of accumulation under Section 11(2) of the Act was duly mentioned in the accounts as well as in the audit report in Form No. 10B, which was furnished on 15th October 2016, i.e. within the due date. 4. The notice for accumulation under Section 11(2) was required to be given in Form No. 10. With effect from A.Y. 2016-17, i.e., the year under consideration, the process of filing Form No. 10 was required to be done online. Due to technical difficulties faced by it, the Petitioner filed Form No. 9A on 15th October 2016, which is the form for exercising an option in terms of Explanation 1 to Section 11(1), instead of filing Form No. 10. There was no delay in filing Form No. 9A, as it was filed on the same day as the Return of Income. In Form No. 9A, it was stated that the amount of Rs. 1,13,51,040/- was received in December and could not be spent in the last quarter, and, therefore, the same was being accumulated. 5. The primary difference be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner made a payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- under protest, being more than 20% of the impugned demand, on 22nd February 2019. 9. Subsequently, the CIT(A) dismissed the Petitioner's appeal by his order dated 2nd April 2022, holding that filing of Form No. 10 was mandatory and that non-furnishing would result in denial of the benefit of accumulation under Section 11(2) of the Act. The Petitioner filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal [for short "the Tribunal/ITAT"]. 10. Before the Tribunal, it was pointed out that Form No. 10 was required to be filed electronically for the first time in A.Y. 2016-17 and that there were technical glitches and that the Petitioner had filed Form No. 9A by mistake. A reference was made to CBDT Circular No. 03/2020 dated 3rd January 2020, by which Commissioners of Income-tax have been authorised to condone delays in filing Form No. 9A and 10. The Petitioner also expressed its readiness to file Form No. 10, if so directed by the Tribunal. 11. The Tribunal by its order dated 5th September 2022 found merit in the Petitioner's claim that it was a charitable trust and held that the benefit under the provisions of the Act should not be de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng Form No. 10 is 2154 days, and the Petitioner has not satisfactorily demonstrated reasonable cause in belatedly filing Form No. 10. Respondent No. 1 computed the period of delay by considering the period from the date of filing of the Return of Income (15th October 2016) till the date of filing of Form No. 10 (8th September 2022). (b) The Petitioner claimed that it had to file Form No. 10 and not Form No.9A till completion of scrutiny assessment vide order under Section 143(3) dated 15th December 2018. However, Petitioner filed Form No. 10 in 2022, which is four years after the passing of the assessment order. (c) The claim of the Petitioner that an incorrect form was filed under a bona fide mistake was without any basis and was an afterthought. Also, the relevant provisions under which the forms are to be filed are entirely different and accordingly, the said two forms are entirely different. (d) The Petitioner did not fill Form No. 10 in the way it is supposed to be done inasmuch as the purpose for which the accumulation was being done was generic and not specific. (e) The onus of establishing reasonable cause for not furnishing Form No. 10 w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was applied by the Petitioner for charitable purposes in the very next year, there was no significance in mentioning the purpose for which the accumulation was being done, as the details of actual utilisation were available. In any event, the purpose of accumulation was stated to be "Education, Relief of Poverty and Other Charitable Objects", which was in line with the specific objects of the Trust. Therefore, all the reasons given in the impugned order were required to be discarded. 17. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners has relied upon the judgments of this Court in the following cases in support of the proposition that in matters of condonation of delay, a highly pedantic approach should be eschewed and a justice-oriented approach should be adopted: 1. Al Jamia Mohammediyah Education Society v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) [2024] 162 taxmann.com 114 (Bombay). 2. SLP against the above decision has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Al Jamia Mohammediyah Education Society [2025] 176 taxmann.com 761 (SC). 3. Artist Tree (P) Ltd., v/s. Central Board of Direct Taxes & Ors., [(2014) 369 ITR 691 (Bom)]. 4. Bharat Educ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccumulate its income of Rs. 1,13,51,040/- under Section 11(2) of the Act. 23. Admittedly, A.Y. 2016-17 was the first year wherein the Form No. 10 was to be filed electronically. Hence, the possibility of the Petitioner having faced technical glitches while filing the requisite forms cannot be ruled out. This is precisely why the CBDT had issued Circular No. 3/2020 dated 3rd January 2020 for empowering the Commissioners of Income Tax to decide the applications for condonation of delay in filing Form Nos. 9A and 10. In the present matter, the Petitioner has filed Form No.9A within time instead of filing Form No. 10, due to which the claim of accumulation was denied under Section 11(2) of the Act. The benefit of accumulation under Section 11(2) of the Act ought not to be denied to the Petitioner when the entire accumulated amount has actually been applied to charitable purposes well within the time allowed under the Act, and the activities of the Petitioner trust are genuine. We find that if this delay is not condoned, there will be genuine hardship to the Petitioner, inasmuch as the Petitioner would be saddled with a tax liability of Rs. 48,89,917/- even though it has substantiall....