TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 326
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts of the case and submissions filed before him/her even when registration order under section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the case of the appellant was duly granted to the appellant on 03-02-2021 i.e. during the course of pendency of assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2018-19 and the object & activities of the appellant remained same as compared to the year of registration and therefore, the appellant was eligible for benefit of section 11 and 12 as per section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2018-19 also. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred confirming the action of the Ld Assessing Officer in denying the benefit of exemption under section 11 and 12 of the income-tax Act, 1961 and assessing the total income of the appellant at Rs. 2,52,05,314/- by stating that the appellant has not claimed exemption under section 11 and 12 of the Act by way of filing of revised income-tax return even when the appellant had duly lodged additional claim to allow exemption under section 11 and 12 of the Act as eligible to the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings itself. 3. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ending before the Assessing Officer as on the date of such registration and the object and activities of the trust or institution remain the same for such preceding assessment year:" Further, alongwith aforesaid letter dated 08.02.2021, the assessee filed several documents including (i) a revised Computation of Total Income claiming exemption u/s 11/12 in place of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad), (ii) copy of Order of registration u/s 12AA dated 03.02.2021 issued by the CIT (Exemption), Bhopal, and (iii) physical copy of Auditor's Report (Form No. 10B) dated 04.02.2021. The assessee submitted that it satisfies all conditions prescribed in Proviso to section 12A(2) and accordingly requested the AO to give benefit of same. Subsequently, the assessee also e-filed Auditor's Report (Form No. 10B) on 27.02.2021, copy of e-filing acknowledgement downloaded from departmental portal is filed (Paper-Book Page 48). (ii) The AO, however, issued show-cause notice dated 24.02.2021 to assessee, as under: "Kindly refer to the above 2. You have filed a return of income for A. Y. 2018-19 u/s. 139(4c) of the IT Act on 30.03.2019, declaring total income at Rs. Nil. On ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bservations in Para 6 of assessment-order: "6. In response to show cause notice, the assessee uploaded letter dated 01.03.2021. The submission of the assessee is considered but the same is not acceptable. The assessee filed first time returned of income for A.Y. 2018-19 u/s 139(4C) of the Act and not filed audit report on due date. The assessee has stated that they have filed return incorrectly. They later revised computation, have uploaded/e-filed Audit report Form 10B on income tax portal on 27.02.2021 and claimed exemption u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act. Further, the assessee submitted comparative chart of income and relied on CBDT circular and has requested to consider the same. The assessee further stated that assessee society is registered u/s 12AA, has requested to condone delay in filling Form 10B and also relied on CBDT circular and case laws. 6.1 In this regards, it is submitted that the assessee has not revised return of income for A.Y. 2018-19, it is pertinent to mention here that power of condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) does not vest with the AO but with the Commissioner of Income Tax. Hence, plea for accepting the revised computation and Form 10B dated 0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns also which are being discussed in the later parts of the order. One must apply for registration u/s 12A(1)(a). 4.1 In ground no. 2 the appellant has argued that the benefit of section 12AA should be made available to this assessment year also. Copy of the order u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is available in the records, as submitted by the appellant. It is specifically written in para III of the order: - "After considering the material available on record, the applicant trust/society/nonprofit company is hereby granted registration with salient activities as Education and the provisions of section 11 and 12 shall apply in the case from the Assessment Year 2020-21". The appellant has not challenged this order. So, Prima facie benefits of section 12AA must not accrue to the present assessment year. Coming to the contention of the appellant in ground no. 2 that the provisions of clause (b) of proviso of sub-section 2 of section 12AA should be applied in its case as assessment proceeding was pending in its case for the present assessment year at the time of order u/s 12AA by CIT (Exemption), Bhopal. But in my opinion this proposition of the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12 and this has to be followed strictly. Actually, the appellant is stretching the intent of the CBDT circular No. 14(XL-35) of 1955 to its undeserving benefit. The circular mainly aimed at facilitating refunds to the tax payers and it also aimed at advising the taxpayer of their rights and abilities. It did not provide any absolute protection from all sorts of omissions and commissions. The content of the circular is reproduced below. "Officers of the department must not take advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his rights. It is one of their duties to assist a tax payer in every reasonable way, particularly in the matter of claiming and securing reliefs and in this regard the officers should take the initiative in guiding a tax payer where proceedings or other particulars before them indicate that some refund or relief is due to him. This attitude would, in the long run, benefit the department, for it would inspire confidence in him that he may be sure of getting a square deal from the department. Although, therefore, the responsibility for claiming refunds and relief rests with the assessee on whom it is imposed by law, officers should- 1. draw their att....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "heard category" and directed the Registry to list the case for a fresh hearing before regular bench on 16.09.2025 after intimation to parties. Accordingly, this case has again come before this bench for a fresh hearing. 5. We have heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and carefully perused the case-record including the orders of lower-authorities, the documents filed in Paper-Book and the Written-Submissions filed by parties. Delay in appeal: 6. This appeal has been filed on 22.08.2024 against impugned order dated 21.06.2023 and accordingly there is a delay of 368 days. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by two solemnised affidavits on stamp, one dated 22.08.2024 and other dated 30.07.2025. Both of these affidavits are deposed by Shri Abhishek Upadhyay/Secretary of assessee-society who has also filed this appeal and signed Form No. 36. Referring to contents of condonation-application and two affidavits, Ld. AR explained the reason of delay. He submitted that the impugned order was passed by CIT(A) on 21.06.2023 and served upon assessee on the very same day; the assessee has menti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ishek Upadhyay/Secretary has given a proper explanation for delay which is such that by reading of last sentence of impugned order he gained an understanding that the assessee had succeeded and no further action was required. However, when the assessee subsequently received penalty-notice u/s 270A dated 01.08.2024 for the same assessment-year [copy of penalty-notice is filed with condonation- application], the matter was consulted with counsel who advised to file appeal against impugned order without any further delay (Para No. 3 of 1st affidavit and Para No. 4 of 2nd affidavit). Immediately, the assessee filed present appeal on 22.08.2024 as per advice of counsel. Ld. AR very humbly submitted that there is no lethargy, negligence, mala fide intention or ulterior motive of assessee in making delay and the assessee does not stand to derive any benefit because of delay. He further submitted that the sole reason of delay is as explained in the condonation-application and affidavits as narrated above. He submitted that the assessee has explained "sufficient cause" for delay. Ld. AR went ahead to submit that the assessee is a charitable institution and eligible for statutory exemption u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted the brief ratio/key holdings in those cases during hearing. He contended that in these decisions, the Hon'ble Courts have taken significant conclusions as under: (i) the 'length of delay' is relevant meaning thereby 'inordinate delay' cannot be condoned. (ii) the concepts such as 'liberal approach', 'justice-oriented approach', 'substantial justice' cannot be employed to jettison the law of limitation; (iii) if the court finds that there has been 'no negligence' on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for delay does not lack bonafides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be 'concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause', then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay, (iv) delay cannot be condoned on 'fanciful stories', (v) 'merit of case' cannot be considered in dealing with condonation, (vi) there is no general proposition that 'mistake of counsel' by itself is always a sufficient ground. It is always a question whether the mistake was bonafide or was merely a decide to cover an ulterior purpose ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rther, he submitted that in the case of Inder Singh (supra) relied by Ld. AR, there are some critical features to be noted by bench, namely (i) there was involvement of Covid-19 period as well, (ii) In para No. 18 of order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has checked overall 'circumspection' and also observed that the court may not be liberal in futuro, and (iii) in para No. 21 of order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/-. Hence, Ld. DR submitted, the assessee cannot derive any benefit from the said decision which is unique to itself. 11. Yet again after conclusion of hearing, Ld. DR for revenue filed a "Written-Submission" to ITAT's office vide Inward Entry No. 1163 dated 16.09.2025; the same is scanned and re-produced below: 12. Following same, the Ld. AR for assessee also filed his rebuttal in writing vide Inward Entry No. 1771 dated 18.09.2025 after serving a copy of same to the office of Ld. DR. The same is running over 14 pages and not being re-produced here for brevity. 13. We have considered the rival submissions and pleadings made by learned Representatives of both sides orally and in writing and also considered the documents held on record. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so." [emphasis supplied] 16. Further, in recent judgement dated 21.03.2025 of Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6145 of 2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus: "FACTS: 3. On 14.12.2012, the appellant filed Civil Suit No.17-A/2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit') before the learned Second Additional District Judge, Class-1, Ashoknagar, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court') for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction in respect of Land Survey No.8/1 having an area of 1.060 hectare (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property') situated in Village Mohrirai, Tehsil and District Ashoknagar, contending that an order dated 30.08.197....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to deal with how 'sufficient cause' had been shown by the respondent for condoning the delay, more so when the respondent's Review Petition before the First Appellate Court was also dismissed on the ground of delay as they did not provide any justification for filing the review after a delay of over two years. He contended that it is settled law that 'sufficient cause' means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or failed to exercise due diligence. Therefore, the appellant's argument that the cause of delay was due to COVID-19 cannot be accepted, as the respondent failed to remain vigilant, since the cause of action arose much before the pandemic hit. 8. With regard to the Impugned Order referring to the judgment in Sheo Raj Singh v Union of India, (2023) 10 SCC 531, where it has been observed that Courts must take a liberal approach regarding delays in appeals filed by the State, the learned counsel for the appellant drew the Court's attention to Paragraphs no.17 and 22 of State of Uttar Pradesh v Satish Chand Shivhare And Brothers, 2022 SCC On Line SC 2151, wherein it was held: '17. The explanation as given in the affidavit in support of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ht to be allowed and the Impugned Order be set aside. SUBMISSIONS BY THE RESPONDENT-STATE: 10. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that out of the delay of 1537 days in filing the Second Appeal, around three years was consumed in filing the Review Petition before the First Appellate Court and after its eventual dismissal on 30.09.2019, by the time the filing process could begin for the Second Appeal, the COVID-19 pandemic arose and it could only get filed in August, 2020. Therefore, the delay caused in filing the Second Appeal was unintentional, much less due to any deliberate laches, and was well-explained by the State before the High Court. It was contended that hence, rightly the delay caused in filing of the Second Appeal was condoned. The respondent further submitted that since the suit property was important and valuable government land, this Court should sustain the Impugned Order as it would entail substantial justice being done to both parties by leading to the eventual disposal of the matter on merits. Reliance was placed on the case of State of Bihar v Kameshwar Prasad Singh, (2000) 9 SCC 94. 11. It was further submitted by the learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estion was taken possession of by the State and allotted for public purpose to the Youth Welfare Department and the Collectorate and has continued in the possession of the State, the claim of the State that it is government land cannot be summarily discarded. We find, upon a perusal of the record, that the appellant had, in fact, filed an execution case for taking over possession of the land, which would demonstrate clearly the admitted position that he was not in possession thereof. Thus, the matter would, in our considered view, require adjudication on its own merits due to various reasons, inter alia, the fact that a new district has been formed after the initial claim of the appellant of being allotted the land in the years 1975-1976/1977-1978. Therefore, the delay of 1537 days reckoned from 01.10.2015 i.e. when the First Appellate Court decreed the suit, includes two years and four months delay in filing a Review Petition (which was itself dismissed on the ground of delay by the First Appellate Court) and of about a year thereafter for filing the Second Appeal before the High Court, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, which, at the cost of repetition relate to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649: (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 713: (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 450: (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 595]. One of the factors taken note of therein was that substantial justice is paramount [Para 21.3 of Esha Bhattacharjee [Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649: (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 713: (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 450: (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 595]]. 38. In N.L. Abhyankar v. Union of India [N.L. Abhyankar v. Union of India, 1994 SCC OnLine Bom 574: (1995) 1 Mah LJ 503], a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Nagpur considered, though in the context of delay vis-à-vis Article 226 of the Constitution, the decision in Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur [Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur, (1992) 2 SCC 598], and held that: (N.L. Abhyankar case [N.L. Abhyankar v. Union of India, 1994 SCC OnLine Bom 574: (1995) 1 Mah LJ 503], SCC OnLine Bom para 22) "22. ... The real test for sound exercise of discretion by the High Court in this regard is not the physical running of time as such, but the test is whether by reason of delay there is such negligence on the part of the petitioner, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madhya Pradesh has taken cognizance of Inder Singh (supra) and condoned the delay of 1797 days, holding as under: "8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 INSC 382 has held as under: "There can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation." 10. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the case of Mool Chandra (supra), has held as under: It is not the length of delay that would be required to be considered while examining the plea for condonation of delay, it is the cause for delay which has been propounded will have to be examined. If the cause for delay would fall within the four corners of "sufficient cause", irrespective of the length of delay same deserves to be condoned. However, if the cause shown is insufficient, irrespective of the period of delay, same would not be condoned." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wever the averment does not explain further as to why the same remained with him. In para 3 of 2nd affidavit, Shri Abhishek Upadhyay/Secretary has given a detailed explanation that he got an impression that the appeal was allowed and no further action was needed. We find that Shri Abhishek Upadhyay/Secretary has given solemnized averment of the understanding (may be a mis- understanding) gained by him from order of CIT(A). This personal understanding and consequently keeping impugned order with himself, is something which is known to Shri Abhishek Upadhyay/ Secretary only and there is hardly any evidence to controvert or disbelieve same. Shri Abhishek Upadhyay/Secretary has made a solemnised averment which corroborates with the fact that the CIT(A) has allowed assessee's appeal (though partly). Notably, the CIT(A) has not dismissed assessee's appeal. Had it been a case of dismissal of assessee's appeal by CIT(A) and the assessee would have filed a belated appeal claiming a bad impression of appeal having been allowed by CIT(A), certainly it would been a case of false, unacceptable explanation. But the present case is not so. In present case, the CIT(A) although the CIT(A) has menti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by AO's action, the assessee went in appeal before CIT(A) and persued its claim. The claim of assessee, as would be seen from our adjudication in subsequent paras, is meritorious and allowable. The CIT(A) also did not allow the claim of assessee but granted alternative relief and allowed appeal partly. Thus, the assessee is contending for its legitimate claim in terms of provision of law. The Ld. DR, in Para No. 2.00 of Written-Synopsis re-produced above, has mentioned "... the assessee applied for registration under section 12AA of the Income-tax Act with the ulterior motive of obtaining retroactive benefit under section 12A.". This submission of Ld. DR does not appeal to us since the documents held on record show that the assessee filed a valid application to CIT(Exemption), Bhopal on 24.01.2020 for grant of registration u/s 12AA and the CIT(Exemption), Bhopal granted registration vide Order dated 03.02.2021 in accordance with law. Consequently, the assessee also became entitled to the benefit of Proviso to section 12A(2) which assessee pressed before AO. In such a situation, how can it be said that the assessee had an ulterior motive? 19. We agree that there are judicial pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....activities of assessee remained same. The assessee also filed a declaration to AO for the point no. (iii); the said declaration has already been re-produced in earlier Para of this order. 21. Ld. AR referred the assessment-order and order of first-appeal passed by AO and CIT(A) [as re-produced by us in earlier Paras 2(iv) & 2(vi) of this order] and demonstrated that there are three reasons for denial of exemption to assessee out of which first two reasons have been assigned by AO and the last reason has been added by CIT(A). These three reasons are: (i) The assessee has not filed revised return claiming exemption u/s 11/12. Ld. AR pointed out that although the AO has not specifically mentioned but this adverse observation may be in tune with Goetze India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a fresh claim can be made only by filing a revised return. (ii) The assessee has not filed Form No. 10B by due date for filing of return. (iii) The 2nd proviso to section 12A(2) relied by assessee became effective from 01.04.2021 and the same was not applicable for AY 2018-19 under consideration. 22. So far as the firs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before this Bench. Hence the benefit of the Proviso is available to the assessee. Ld. AR gainfully referred the decision of ITAT, Ahmedabad in Shri Bhanushali Mitra Mandal Trust Vs. ITO, ITA No. 2515/Ahd/2015 dated 22.02.2016 where it was held thus: "7.1 To examine the first issue, necessarily I have to analyze the relevant provision, namely, the amendment to Section 12A by Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01.10.2014 by way of insertion of provisos to Section 12A(2) of the Act which is reproduced below for ready reference: "[(2) Where an application has been made on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, the provisions of sections 11 and 12 shall apply in relation to the income of such trust or institution from the assessment year immediately following the financial year in which such application is made: Provided that where registration has been granted to the trust or institution under section 12AA, then, the provisions of sections 11 and 12 shall apply in respect of any income derived from property held under trust of any assessment year preceding the aforesaid assessment year, for which assessment proceedings are pending before the Assessing Officer as on the da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he instant case, it is not in dispute that registration was granted w.e.f. 17.12.2013 by the order of CIT(A) dated 08.05.2014. It is also not in dispute that objects and activities of the assessee trust are charitable in nature during the relevant financial year. When Section 12A of the Act was amended by introducing new provisos to sub- section (2) of Section 12A by Finance Act, 2014 with effect from 01.10.2014, the assessment orders Asst. Year 2011-12 passed by the assessing officer in respect of the present assessee were pending in appeal before the first appellate authority. During such pendency, the assessee was granted registration u/s. 12AA of the Act on 17.12.2013 w.e.f. the assessment year 2013-14. The appeal is the continuation of the original proceedings and that the power of the Commissioner of Income-tax was co-terminus with that of the assessing officer were two well established principles of law. In view of the above and going by the principle of purposive interpretation of statues, an assessment proceeding which is pending in appeal before the appellate authority should be deemed to be 'assessment proceedings pending before the assessing officer' within the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w that a proviso which is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the provision workable, a proviso which supplies an obvious omission in the section and is required to be read into the section to give the section a reasonable interpretation, requires to be treated as retrospective in operation, so that a reasonable interpretation can be given to the section as a whole and accordingly the said insertion of first proviso to section 12A(2) of the Act with effect from 1.10.2014 should be read as retrospective in operation with effect from the date when the condition of eligibility for exemption under section 11 & 12 as mentioned in section 12A provided for registration u/s.12AA as a pre-condition for applicability of section 12A." Ld. AR argued that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of this decision and therefore the assessment-year 2014-15 pending before this Bench in appeal must be construed as an assessment-year for which proceeding is pending before assessing officer. For the sake of completeness, Ld. AR also submitted that the assessee is a university established under the legislation of Madhya Pradesh Govt. and since beginning it is engaged in the v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g based on application and accumulation of income. Therefore, we feel that it would be more appropriate to refer this matter back to Ld. AO who shall give an opportunity to the assessee to provide the necessary information for computation of exemption u/s 11 / 12. Based on such information, the Ld. AO shall allow the exemption as admissible u/s 11 / 12 to the assessee. 12. In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose." 23. Further, Ld. AR has also filed a copy of order in Akshay Academy Vs. ITO, NFAC, Delhi, ITA No. 199/Ind/2024 in Paper-Book and referred following paras of same: "2. The assessee trust has filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 18.03.2019 declaring total income at nil after claiming exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. In the scrutiny assessment the AO noted that the assessee has declared gross receipt at Rs. 7,56,19,050/- which is more than the prescribed monetary limit for claiming exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act and therefore, the said claim of the assessee cannot be allowed. During the assessment proceeding the assessee's vide letter dated 30.01.2021 explained that the claim o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... his contention he has relied upon following decisions: (i) M/s Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya vs. DCIT(E) in ITA No. 924/Ind/2018 (ii) Madhya Pradesh Council for Vocational Education & Training vs. CIT(E) in ITA Nos. 176 & 177/Ind/2022 3.1 Ld. AR has further submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee filed form no.10B placed at page no.67 to 69 of the paper book. The assessee also filed declaration to the fact that there is no change in the objects and activities of the assessee trust since inception which is placed at page no.70 of the paper book. Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee statistics all the conditions prescribed in the proviso to section 12A(2) of the Act. He has also relied upon CBDT circular no.173 of 2019 dated 13th April 2019 as well as the decision of the Rajkot Bench of the Tribunal in case of Shri Rajkot Vishashrimali Jain Samaj v. ITO 200 ITD 662. 4. On the other hand, ld. DR has submitted that the assessee did not claim exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act in the return of income therefore, the claim of the assessee cannot be entertained by the AO in absence of revised return of income for making a f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty." In this regard the reliance is placed on the landmark decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited Vs CIT (284 ITR 323) wherein the Apex court has held that "it is necessary for an assessee to revise its return of income for raising any new claim which is not raised in the original return of income". In the instant case the assessee had not revised his Return of Income to claim new exemption for the A.Y. 2018-19. Not even Audit Report in Form No. 10B not filed for the A.Y. 2018-19 within the stipulated time." 5.1 The AO has not disputed the fact that during the pendency of the assessment proceedings the assessee was granted registration u/s 12AA vide order dated 28th September 2019 w.e.f assessment year 2019-20 which is recorded in para 3 of the assessment order as under: "3. On Verification of the Registration Certificate issued u/s 12AA, in the registration certificate issued u/s 12AA dated 28.09.2019, it is specifically mentioned that "An application in Form No. 10A seeking Registration u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was filed on 29.03.2019". The registration u/s 12AA was granted on 28.09.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame without any change during this period. Hence, as contemplated by the first proviso to section 12A(2) that the benefit of section 11 & 12 cannot be denied to a genuine charitable trust or society in respect of the income derived from the property held under trust for the preceding assessment year for which assessment proceedings are pending before the AO even if the registration u/s 12A/12AA is granted subsequently and for the subsequent assessment year. Thus, it is clear that provisions of section 12A(2) r.w. proviso provides that registration once granted in subsequent year, the benefit of section 11 & 12 of the Act has to be given in the preceding assessment year for which the assessment proceedings are pending before the AO subject to the conditions that there is no change in the objects and activities of the trust during this period. This tribunal in case of M/s Barkatullah vishwavidyalaya vs. DCIT(E) vide order dated 30.06.2022 has considered this issue in para 11 as under: "11. Now we proceed to examine the alternative claim of exemption u/s 11 / 12 demanded by the assessee. On perusal of the Proviso to section 12A(2) and the decision of Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tProviso to section 12A(2). For ready reference, the provision of section 12A(2) as existing at the relevant time, is re-produced below: "12A(2) Where an application has been made on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, the provisions of sections 11 and 12 shall apply in relation to the income of such trust or institution from the assessment-year immediately following the financial year in which such application is made: Provided that where registration has been granted to the trust or institution under section 12AA, then, the provisions of sections 11 and 12 shall apply in respect of any income derived from property held under trust of any assessment year preceding the aforesaid assessment year, for which assessment proceedings are pending before the Assessing Officer as on the date of such registration and the object and activities of the trust or institution remain the same for such preceding assessment year: Provided further that no action under section 147 shall be taken by the Assessing Officer in case of such trust or institution for any assessment-year preceding the aforesaid assessment-year only for non-registration of such trust or institution fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome derived from property held under trust of any assessment year preceding the aforesaid assessment year, for which assessment proceedings are pending before the Assessing Officer as on the date of such registration and the object and activities of the trust or institution remain the same for such preceding assessment year:" Analyzing the above Proviso, the Ld. AR submitted that once the registration has been granted u/s 12AA, the exemption u/s 11 and 12 shall apply in respect of any preceding assessment-year for which the assessment-proceeding is pending before the AO on the date of registration. Ld. AR submitted that in the present case, the assessee has been granted registration u/s 12AA on 17.06.2019 for assessment-year 2019-20 onwards. Ld. AR submitted that the present appeal of assessee pertaining to assessment-year 2014-15 was pending on 17.06.2019 before this Bench. Hence the benefit of the Proviso is available to the assessee. Ld. AR gainfully referred the decision of ITAT, Ahmedabad in Shri Bhanushali Mitra Mandal Trust Vs. ITO, ITA No. 2515/Ahd/2015 dated 22.02.2016 where it was held thus: "7.1 To examine the first issue, necessarily I have to analyz....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enuine charitable objects in the earlier years and substantive conditions stipulated in section 11 to 13 have been duly fulfilled by the said trust. The benefit of retrospective application alone could be the intention of the legislature and this point is further strengthened by the Explanatory Notes to Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide its Circular No. 01/2015 dated 21.1.2015. Apparently, the statute provides that registration once granted in subsequent year, the benefit of the same has to be applied in the earlier assessment years for which assessment proceedings are pending before the ld. A.O., unless the registration granted earlier is cancelled or refused for specific reasons. The statute also goes on to provide that no action u/s147 could be taken by the AO merely for non- registration of trust for earlier years. 7.3 In the instant case, it is not in dispute that registration was granted w.e.f. 17.12.2013 by the order of CIT(A) dated 08.05.2014. It is also not in dispute that objects and activities of the assessee trust are charitable in nature during the relevant financial year. When Section 12A of the Act was amended by intro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ew, sections 12A and 12AA are only procedural in nature. Hence, it is not the registration u/s 12AA by itself that offers immunity from taxation. A receipt whether it is revenue or capital in nature is to be decided at the assessment stage. Being procedural in nature, in my view, liberal interpretation will give effect to the intention of the amendment, thereby removing the hardship in genuine cases like the present assessee under consideration. 7.5 I am also supported by the order of Kolkata Bench of ITAT in case of Sree Sree Ramkrishna Samity vs. DCIT (ITA No. 1680/2012, order dated 09.10.2015) where it was held that amendment to Section 12A w.e.f. 01.10.2014 is retrospective. The relevant funding of the Hon'ble Kolkata Bench in case of Sree Sree Ramkrishna Samity vs. DCIT (supra) read as follows: "6.10. We hold that it is an established position in law that a proviso which is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the provision workable, a proviso which supplies an obvious omission in the section and is required to be read into the section to give the section a reasonable interpretation, requires to be treated as retrospective in operation, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the assessee is entitled to the benefit of exemption u/s 11/12 for the assessment-year 2014-15 under consideration as the requirements prescribed in the Proviso stand satisfied, viz. (i) the revenue had already granted registration u/s 12AA from assessment-year 2019-20, (ii) the assessment-year under consideration is 2014-15 which falls within "any preceding assessment year", and (iii) the objects and activities of the assessee remain same. We also find that the Ld. DR did not make any objection to this claim argued by Ld. AR. But, however, we have to ascertain one important aspect i.e. can we entertain this new claim made by assessee for the first time before us? In this respect we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Goetze India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) that a fresh claim can be made only by filing a revised return. But various courts have already analysed the impact of this decision and vehemently held that a fresh claim before appellate authorities is not barred. It is constantly held in several decisions that a legal claim can be made by the assessee before appellate authorities even if the same was not claimed during assessment-proceedings. We also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....less to mention that the AO shall give necessary opportunities to assessee and pass order in accordance with law without being influenced by his previous order. Ordered accordingly. 5.5 Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above and following the earlier decisions of this Tribunal we hold that the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 11 & 12 for the year under consideration. We find that when there is no change in the objects and activities of the assessee since inception as a certificate to this effect was filed by the assessee before CIT(E) which was duly considered while granting registration u/s 12A therefore, the question of verifying the claim does not arise. Further when the claim u/s 11 & 12 was made only after the registration was granted by the CIT(E) then filing the audit report in 10B at the time of filing the return of income would amount to asking the assessee to make a compliance for non-existing fact at that point of time. Even otherwise filing of tax audit in form 10B is a directory requirement. Therefore, the delay in filing the tax audit report is not deliberate but due to the reason of subsequent registration u/s 12A can....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d judicial rulings noted in foregoing paragraphs, we find that the assessee can't be denied the benefit of exemption u/s 11/12 as claimed in return of income for mere delay in filing of audit-report (Form No. 10B), when the assessee has in fact filed such report though after filing of return. We, therefore, deem it fit to remand this matter back to the file of AO for a fresh assessment after considering audit-report (Form No. 10B) filed by assessee. The assessee succeeds in this appeal." Accordingly, the claim of the assessee u/s 11 & 12 of the Act is allowed." 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed." 24. In so far as the third reason added by Ld. CIT(A) is concerned, the same is patently wrong. The Ld. CIT(A) seems to have wrongly picked the date of 01.04.2021 for applicability of Proviso to section 12A(2) of the Act. In fact, the said Proviso was brought in Income-tax Act through Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01.10.2014. Subsequently, it was closed from 01.04.2021 due to introduction of new system of registrations u/s 12A/12AB brought by Parliament. 25. Therefore, Ld. AR contended that all three reasons given by AO/CIT(A) are not tenabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y information for computation of exemption u/s 11/12. Based on such information, the Ld. AO shall allow exemption to the extent admissible u/s 11/12 to the assessee, after necessary verification. 29. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. ============= Document 1 > REG. NO. 03/27/03/10817/08 SHRI SHANTANU VIDYAPEETH SOCIETY SAMITI -36, KUMHARKHEDI, KUSHWAH NAGAR, MAIN ROAD, INDORE (M.P.) - 0731-2424444 DECLARATION I Abhishek Upadhyay, secretary of Shree Shantanu Vidhyapeeth Society Samiti, hereby declare that there is no change in the objects and activities of society as mentioned in the bye-laws of the society since its inception. Abhishek Upadhyay AR SecretaSECRETARY Shri Shantanu Vidhyapeeth Society, Indore (M.P.) Place : Indore Date : 28/02/2021 A Document 2 ITA 640/Ind/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) In the case of SHREE SHANTANU VIDHYAPEETH SOCIETY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI Bench: DB 6 29-Jul- 2025 (Tuesday) This case was heard on 24.07.2025. Subsequently, at the time of dictation of order, it is found that the present appeal has been filed by Shri Abhishek Upadhyay on 22.08.2024 and so also the af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... land owner and government which arose due to the formation of a new district. Therefore, looking to the peculiar facts and the gravity of the case the Apex Court condoned the delay after imposition of cost of Rs.50,000/- on the State. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court at para 18 had stated that "a note of caution is sounded to the respondent to exhibit promptitude in like matters henceforth, and in futuro failing which the court may not be as liberal". Hence, the Hon'ble Apex Court has condoned the delay considering the specific circumstances of the case with a clear finding that the court may not be as liberal in future. Contd ... 3/ Document 5 [3] Case Law Distinguishing Observation Land Collector Acquisition, Anantnag and another vs. Mst. Katiji [(1987) 2 SCC 107 (SC)] This decision concerns acquisition matters and emphasizes liberal interpretation of limitation periods in public interest. It does not address deliberate or ill conduct by the party seeking relief, which is central in the present case. To counter this position we have already submitted plethora of judgments including the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein it has been time and again held th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0-07-2025, the Assessee Society has now furnished a revised explanation stating that the Secretary himself was under the impression that the appeal was "partly allowed" and, therefore, relief was already granted. Your flonours, such an explanation is nothing but a sheer afterthought, and rather reflects a deliberate attempt by the assessee to create a fictitious case of "sufficient cause" The Secretary of the Assessee Society, being the authorized officer and custodian of the society's records, was well aware of the importance and outcome of the CIT(A)'s order. Document 7 [5] Moreover, a specific Counsel was appointed by the Assessee Society to represent its interests before the CIT(A). It was the bounden duty of the Secretary to consult the appointed Counsel and obtain the proper outcome of the appeal. Furthermore, the Order of the learned CIT(A) is very unambiguous and contains ground-wise adjudication on the issues before him. The explanation now put forth by the assessee that the Secretary himself was under the mistaken impression that the appeal was "partly allowed" and relief had already been granted is wholly unsustainable and cannot be accepted under any circumstance....