TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1158
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-19, against the order dated 24.12.2021 passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 154 of the Act and intimation letter dated 23.03.2020 issued by the respondent no. 2 under Section 143(1) of the Act for the AY 2018-19, with the following prayers:- "a. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari or certiorarified mandamus or any other suitable writ or direction, calling the record relating to the order dated 14.06.2024 passed by Respondent No. 1 under Section 119(2)(b) of ITA, 1961 for AY 2018-19 and set aside the same; and b. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari or certiorarified mandamus or any other suitable writ or direction, calling the record relating to the order dated 23.03.2020 passed by Respondent No. 2 under Section 143(1) of ITA, 1961 for AY 2018-19 and set aside the same; and c. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari or certiorarified mandamus or any other suitable writ or direction, calling the record relating to the order dated 24.12.2021 passed by Respondent No. 2 under Section 154 of ITA, 1961 for AY 2018-19 and set aside the same; and d. Hold and declare that the Petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1) of the Act without granting an exemption claimed by the petitioner under Section 11 and 12 of the Act thereby disallowing the exemption by stating that the return was filed with the purported delay of 16 days in filing the audit report in the prescribed Form 10B. The respondent no. 2 thereby made a substantial demand of Rs. 2,23,53,562/- against the petitioner. 6. On 24.12.2021, the respondent no. 2 passed an order rectifying the intimation order dated 23.03.2020 issued under Section 154 of the Act affirming the disallowance of exemption claimed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent no. 2, the petitioner filed an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act before the respondent No. 1 for condonation of delay of 16 days in filing the audit report as per Form 10B. As per the application before the respondent No. 1, the petitioner had stated that the delay was caused due to an inadvertent error on the part of its auditor / tax professional and the same has been rectified vide a uploading of the audit report on 16.11.2018. During the course of proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) He....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bstantial questions of law are decided in favour of the appellant/ revenue and against the respondent. 14. Since the challenge was against the order dated 14.06.2024, which was not maintainable, liberty shall be with the petitioner to seek such remedy as available in law. 15. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the pursuant to the order of the ITAT the respondents have issued an appeal effect order dated 01.07.2025 and also amount of Rs. 17,12,511/- has been credited in the account of the respondent/assessee. 16. It is made clear that the period during which the respondent was prosecuting the appeal before the ITAT and also this writ petition, the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing delay/laches/ limitation." 11. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioner filed this writ petition against the order passed by the respondent No. 1 under Section 119(2) (b) of the Act dated 14.06.2024, rectification order dated 24.12.2021 passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 154 of the Act; and intimation order dated 23.03.2020 passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 143(1) of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctions 11 and 12 of the Act to which the petitioner was otherwise legitimately entitled, as the delay did not negate the satisfaction of the essential conditions for availing the exemption. On this ground alone, the summary assessment/ intimation order passed by respondent No. 2 is liable to be set aside. 16. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the following decisions: i) Al Jamia Mohammediyah Education Society v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions). [2024] 162 taxmann.com 114 (Bombay) ii) Social Security Scheme of GICEA v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions). [2023] 147 taxmann.com 283 (Gujarat) iii) Sarvodaya Charitable Trust v. Income Tax Officer. (Exemption), [2021] 125 taxmann.com 75 (Gujarat) iv) Society for Training Action Research and Rehabilitation v. Central Board of Direct Taxes. [2022] 176 taxmann.com 16 (Orissa) v) Parul Mahila Pragati Mandal v. Income-tax Officer (Exemption). [2025] 175 taxmann.com 922 (Gujarat) vi) Shilparamam Arts, Crafts and Cultural Society v. AddI. Jt/Dy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ITO, [2024] 158 taxmann.com 714 (Telangana) vii) Commissioner of Incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y in filing form No. 1O B has been delegated to CIT(E) vide circular no 16/2022. Para 3 of t11e referred circular reads as under: "The Pr. Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner or Commissioner of Income Tax, as the case may be while entertaining such applications for condonation of dealy in filing From 10B shall satisfy themselves that the applicant was prevented by reasonable cause from filing such From within the stipulated time." 5.4 Tile issue regarding condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) l1as been discussed in detail by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of M/s B.U Bhandari Nandgude Patil Associates (Writ Petition Civil No. 6537/2017). The relevant part of the order is as under:- "The main issue raised by the assessee in this case is that the delay in audit has led to delay in filing of return which had led to his claim of 8018(10) being disallowed and this had caused genuine hardship to him. It should be noted first that disallowance of any claim will normally lead to hardship. The Legislature has provided time limits for certain obligations under the Act and these time limits have to be observed to be able to claim certain deductions, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Act. The exemption was disallowed by stating that the return was filed with a delay of 16 days in filing of audit report in the prescribed Form-10(b), the same resulting in a demand of Rs. 2,23,53,562/- against the petitioner. 22. On 24.12.2021, the respondent no. 2 passed an order issued under Section 154 of the Act for rectifying the intimation order dated 23.03.2020 affirming the rejection of exemption under Section 11 of the Act. Be that as it may, the petitioner filed an application under Section 119(2) seeking condonation of delay in filing Form 10(b). The same was rejected by the respondents. 23. Having noted the facts, we are of the view that the facts clearly enumerate that the return was filed within the time stipulated i.e., on 31.10.2018. It is the case of the petitioner that a reference to the audit report dated 30.09.2018 was made in the ITR and that it was only on 15.11.2018; it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that the audit report has not been uploaded, so in that sense a delay on 16 days had occurred, surely in filing the audit report is a bona fide mistake. The averments made in the application are primarily that the audit report could not be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of returns have to be complied and respected, unless, compelling and good reasons are shown and established for grant of extension of time. Extension of time cannot be claimed as a vested right on mere asking and on the basis of vague assertions without proof." 26. The respondents have also stated that even otherwise the intimation under 143(1) of the Act was passed on 23.03.2020, whereas the appellant/petitioner has filed the application seeking condonation of delay on 02.03.2022, i.e., after two years which again reflects casual approach of the petitioner/assessee. 27. Suffice to state, the law in this regard is well settled, i.e., any mistake on the part of the Auditor should not result in hardship or prejudice to the assessee. The learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in relying upon the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Sarvodaya Charitable Trust v. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), [2021] 125 taxmann.com 75 (Gujarat) wherein, the Gujarat High Court in Paragraphs 31 and 33 has held as under: "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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upremely confident that the lawyer will look after his interest. At the time of the hearing of the appeal, the personal appearance of the party is not only not required but hardly useful. Therefore, the party having done everything in his power to effectively participate in the proceedings can rest assured that he has neither to go to the High Court to inquire as to what is happening in the High Court with regard to his appeal nor is he to act as a watchdog of the advocate that the latter appears in the matter when it is listed. It is no part of his job... The problem that agitates us is whether it is proper that the party should suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission, or misdemeanour of his agent. The answer obviously is in the negative. Maybe that the learned advocate absented himself deliberately or intentionally. We have no material for ascertaining that aspect of the matter. We say nothing more on that aspect of the matter. However, we cannot be a party to an innocent party suffering injustice merely because his chosen advocate defaulted. Therefore, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court both dismissing the appeal and refusing to recall that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esult of the impugned order is in effect that the petitioner's claim of inadvertent mistake is sought to be characterised as not bona fide. The court is of the opinion that an assessee has to take leave of its senses if it deliberately wishes to forego a substantial amount as the assessee is ascribed to have in the circumstances of this case. "Bona fide" is to be understood in the context of the circumstance of any case. Beyond a plea of the sort the petitioner raises (concededly belatedly), there can not necessarily be independent proof or material to establish that the auditor in fact acted without diligence. The petitioner did not urge any other grounds such as illness of someone etc., which could reasonably have been substantiated by independent material. In the circumstances of the case, the petitioner in our opinion, was able to show bona fide reasons why the refund claim could not be made in time. 9. The statute or period of limitation prescribed in provisions of law meant to attach finality and in that sense are statutes of repose; however, wherever the legislature intends relief against hardship in cases where such statutes lead to hardships, the concerned aut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iculties in uploading its ITR. The petitioner has claimed that, after successfully uploading the tax audit report and Form 10CCB, it was unable to upload the ITR form. There may be myriad of technical reasons for the petitioner encountering such a problem, including a technical glitch or human error at its end. However, we accept that the petitioner did face some hardship in uploading its ITR form. We are persuaded to accept this also for the reason that there is no plausible reason for the petitioner to have refrained from filing its ITR after having commenced the process and uploaded two vital documents that were to be filed along with the ITR. More importantly, the petitioner's income could be ascertained on the basis of these documents. 9. The provisions under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act have been enacted with the primary object of relaxing the conditions where a case of genuine hardship is made out. In the present case, the petitioner's inability to file the return would clearly fall within this category. Thus, the denial of relaxation of a single day in a case where the petitioner had already commenced the process of uploading the documents and its return, i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y because Form 10B was not filed within time. In such circumstances, the denial on the part of the Department to condone the delay in complying with the procedural requirement on the part of the Assessee would result in denial of a substantive right of the Assessee to claim an exemption, which would in turn, result in the Assessee having to pay the demanded amount, thereby unjustly enriching the Department. In such view of the matter in our opinion, the Petitioner would have been caused undue hardship which the Department could have alleviated by allowing the Assessee's application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, which is rejected only on the technical grounds. 7.2 This Court in several recent decisions, namely in the case of Royal Led Equipments (P.) Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax [2025] 174 taxmann.com 61 (Gujarat)/Special Civil Application No. 14786 of 2024 and in the case of Surat Smart City Development Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 169 taxmann.com 222 (Gujarat)/Special Civil Application No. 10397 of 2024 has directed the Department to consider the Assessee's applications under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act to ensure that the ....