2025 (10) TMI 536

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ncome-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), rejecting the Petitioner's application dated 10th December, 2018, for condonation of delay in filing Form No. 9A for the Assessment Year 2016-2017. Respondent No. 2 has by the impugned order, refused to condone the delay of 784 days in filing Form No. 9A. Consequently, the Petitioner's claim for deemed application of income under clause (2) of the Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act has been denied to the Petitioner. 3. The Petitioner is a charitable trust set up in 1987 and registered with the Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai, under section 12A of the Act in 1988. The Trust was also registered in 1987 with the Charity Commissioner, Mumbai and is also registered under....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....come at Rs. 1,21,01,010/- and raised a tax demand of Rs. 51,93,031/-, by rejecting its claim for deemed application under Section 11(1) of the Act on the ground that the Petitioner had not filed Form No. 9A exercising the option for deemed application of income within the time prescribed. 6. Respondent No. 2, by his order dated 18th February, 2025, rejected the Petitioners application dated 10th December, 2018 for condonation of delay in filing Form 9A on the ground that the Petitioner has not been able to adduce any reasonable cause which prevented it from filing Form No. 9A within the specified date. 7. In this factual backdrop, the counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Respondent No. 2 has not doubted or denied any of the facts....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Income-Tax to liberally condone the delay in filing Form No. 9A and Form No. 10. However, Respondent No. 2 had adopted a hyper technical and pedantic approach, which has caused great prejudice to the Petitioner. Respondent No. 2 ought to have adopted a lenient and pragmatic view of the matter and condoned the delay, was the submission. 10. In support of his arguments, the Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the judgments of this Court in the following cases:- i. KSB Care Charitable Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) W.P. (L) No. 23591 of 2025, decided on 22.9.2025. ii. Al Jamia Mohammediyah Education Society Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) ([2024] 298 Taxman 650 (Bom).) SLP against the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....time specified. It was also submitted that the impugned order passed by Respondent No. 2 is in consonance with the Circulars issued by Board from time to time under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The Counsel for the Respondent further submitted that the judgments relied upon by the Petitioner are distinguishable on facts, and therefore, not applicable to the present case. Consequently, he submitted that there was no merit in the above Writ Petition and the same be dismissed with costs. 14. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. We have also perused the materials placed on record and the case laws relied upon. Admittedly, Assessment Year 2016-2017 was the first year wherein filing of Form No. 9A was prescribed by the amendment ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Authorities ought to be equitious, balancing and judicious and availing of exemption should not be denied merely on the bar of limitation. This is more so, when the legislature has conferred wide discretionary powers to condone the delay on the authorities concerned. The relevant portion of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Sarvodaya Charitable Trust (supra) is reproduced hereunder :- '31. Having given our due consideration to all the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the view that the approach in the cases of the present type should be equitious, balancing and judicious. Technically, strictly and liberally speaking, the respondent no.2 might be justified in denying the exemption under section 12 ....