TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1745
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xtended to 15.03.2022. Accordingly, the Petitioner filed its return of income on 22.01.2022, declaring a total income of NIL, after claiming exemption under section 11 of the Act. c) The Petitioner set aside a sum of Rs. 2,25,00,000/- under Section 11(2) of the Act and filed the requisite Form No. 10 on 22.09.2021, well within the due date. d) The audit of the Petitioner's accounts was completed on 04.08.2021. However, the audit report in Form No. 10B, which was due on 15.02.2022, was filed only on 09.09.2022, resulting in a delay. e) The Centralised Processing Centre (CPC) issued an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act on 27.10.2022, denying the exemption under Section 11 and raising a tax demand of Rs. 1,08,45,348/- on the ground that Form 10B was not filed within the due date. f) Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal against the intimation before the Commissioner (Appeals), which was subsequently dismissed on 18.02.2025, on the ground that the appellate authority had no power to condone the delay. g) In the interregnum, on 24.04.2023, the Petitioner also filed an application with Respondent No. 1 for condonation of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned counsel for the Department, supported the impugned order of Respondent No. 1 and contended that:- a) The primary reason for the delay, as admitted by the Petitioner, was the lack of awareness of the legal requirement. It is a settled principle that ignorance of law cannot be an excuse for noncompliance. b) There was a considerable delay of 230 days, which demonstrates a lack of due diligence on the part of the Petitioner. The reasons provided are general in nature and do not constitute a "reasonable cause" for the delay. c) The Petitioner failed to provide any cogent evidence to substantiate the reasons for the delay. The claim of hardship is a bald assertion without any supporting documentation. 6. He, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the Petition as according to him, there was no infirmity in the impugned order passed by Respondent No. 1. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for both parties and have perused the material on record. 8. The core issue for our consideration is whether the delay in filing Form 10B should be condoned. It is very well settled that the power to condone delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is a discretion....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mption on the basis of promissory estoppel at the time when it addressed the letter dated 25th June, 1970. In fact, in the petition as originally filed, the right to claim total exemption from sales tax was not based on the plea of promissory estoppel which was introduced only by way of amendment. Moreover, it must be remembered that there is no presumption that every person knows the law. It is often said that every one is presumed to know the law, but that is not a correct statement: there is no such maxim known to the law. Over a hundred and thirty years ago, Maule, J., pointed out in Martindala v. Faulkner, (1846) 2 CB 706 "There is no presumption in this country that every person knows the law: it would be contrary to common sense and reason if it were so". Scrutton, also once said: "It is impossible to know all the statutory law, and not very possible to know all the common law." But it was Lord Atkin who, as in so many other spheres, put the point in its proper context when he said in Evans v. Bartlem, 1937 AC 473 "..... the fact is that there is not and never has been a presumption that every one knows the law. There is the rule that ignorance of the law d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....after hearing the parties. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 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. The approach of the authorities should be justice-oriented so as to advance cause of justice. If refund is legitimately due to the applicant, mere delay should not defeat the claim for refund." 13. It is also pertinent to note that various Courts have held that the provision regarding furnishing of audit report with the return has to be treated as a procedural provision. It is directory in nature and its substantial compliance would suffice. Thus, if such report is filed on or before the completion of assessment, then the Courts have held the same to be a sufficient compliance. In the present case, the audit report was filed on 09.09.2022, which was much before the intimation under Sectio....