TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1718
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Return of Income, Form No. 10, as well as Form No. 10B. Such rejection has resulted in denial of benefit of exemption to the Petitioner Trust. 3. The Respondents have filed their Affidavit-in-Reply dated 28th November 2025. When the matter was heard on 1st December, 2025, we granted leave to the Petitioner to amend the Writ Petition and bring on record the said Order dated 6th March 2025 rejecting Petitioner's Application insofar as Form No. 10B is concerned. The Order dated 6th March 2025 rejecting Petitioner's Application for Condonation of Delay in filing Form No. 10B has been brought on record as Exhibit 'M - 1' and is also impugned herein. 4. It was pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that during pendency of this Writ Petition, Respondent No. 1 has now passed a third Order dated 11th December 2025 thereby condoning the delay in filing the Return of Income for A.Y. 2020 - 21. 5. Since the Respondent No. 1 has now condoned the delay in filing the Return of Income for A.Y. 2020 - 21, the only issue before us is with respect to rejection of the Petitioner's Application for Condonation of Delay in filing Form No. 10 and Form No. 10B. 6. Brief....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication for Condonation of Delay before the Respondent No. 1. Ultimately, the Petitioner filed the Application for Condonation of Delay in filing the Return of Income, Form No. 10B and Form No. 10, before the 1st Respondent on 24th February 2025 stating that the delay was attributable to the lockdown imposed by the Government in wake of the COVID - 19 pandemic. 10. Thereafter, the Ld. Commissioner Appeals once again dismissed the Petitioner's appeal on the ground of non - prosecution vide its order dated 3rd March 2025. Immediately thereafter, on 6th March 2025, the Impugned Order rejecting Petitioner's Application for Condonation of Delay in filing Form No. 10 came to be passed on the sole ground that the Application itself was not maintainable in view of Circular No. 16 / 2024 dated 18th November 2024. It was observed that since the Petitioner had filed the Application beyond a period of three years from the end of the relevant A.Y. 2020 - 21, the Application could not be entertained. It is under such circumstances that the Petitioner is before us challenging the Orders both dated 6th March 2025 passed by Respondent No. 1 (Exhibit 'M' and 'M-1') rejecting Petitioner's Appl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to further challenge before the Ld. Tribunal, at that stage, the Petitioner Trust was advised by their Chartered Accountant to await the outcome in the appeal proceedings before the Ld. Tribunal. Subsequent to the same, upon introduction of the new Circular No. 16 / 2024 dated 18th November 2024, the Petitioner Trust preferred to approach the Respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the same, an Application for Condonation of Delay was filed on 24th February 2025. Mr. Walve accordingly submitted that the said delay in filing the Application is explainable and reasonable. Thus, the delay in filing the Forms deserves to be condoned. 14. Mr. Walve further submitted that this Court in the case of Little Flower Education Society vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Mumbai & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 2057 of 2025] under similar circumstances and for the same A.Y. 2020 - 21, has condoned the delay of 31 days in filing Form No. 10B wherein the Petitioner had filed the Application beyond a period of three years, which was rejected on ground of limitation. Further, to fortify his submission, he relied on the judgment of this Court in Sofitel Realty LLP vs. Income-tax Officer (TDS) [2023] 153 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay in filing Form No. 10B and Form No. 10 is condonable or not. We note that there is no challenge to the Circular No. 16 / 2024 and thus, there is no requirement to examine the validity of the Circular No. 16 / 2024. Having said that, we do not deem it appropriate to send the Petitioner to the CBDT. Admittedly, the delay in filing Form No. 10B and Form No. 10 is minor i.e. around 38 and 69 days respectively. We are satisfied with the reason for the said delay. In fact, Respondent No. 1 has already accepted the Petitioner's reason for the delay in filing the Return of Income. In Little Flower (supra), where one of us (B.P. Colabawalla J) was a member, this Court was faced with a similar situation, incidentally for the same A.Y. 2020 - 21. This Court noted as follows: "20. Having said that, in the facts of the present case, we do not deem it appropriate to send the Petitioner to the CBDT. This is because we are satisfied that there is a reasonable cause for delay of 31 days in filing of Form No. 10B by the Petitioner. Firstly, the delay is merely of 31 days. Further, we note that AY 2020-21 was the first year when the due date to file the audit report was preponed by one mo....