TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1158
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, Worthy CIT(A), in Appeal No. NFAC/2019-20/10453505 has erred in passing order dtd. 12.12.2025 in contravention of provisions of S. 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"). 2. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in upholding the denial of exemption claimed by the appellant u/s 10(23C) (vi) solely on the alleged delay of 28 days in filing audit report in Form 10BB when the report was not actually delayed and alternatively, there existed reasonable cause for such delay and more-so it was during Covid period. 3. That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the CPC in treating the entire gross rece....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llegedly been filed 28 days beyond the prescribed due date. Consequently, the entire assessee's gross receipts were brought to tax, and a substantial demand was raised. The assessee's rectification applications under section 154 were also rejected. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of CPC by holding that timely filing of Form No. 10BB was a mandatory condition and that neither the Assessing Officer nor the appellate authority possessed any power to condone the delay. 4. The Ld. AR reiterated the written synopsis and written submissions filed before the Tribunal. It was submitted that the assessee is admittedly an institution covered under section 10(23C)(vi) and governed by section 139(4C) of the Act. During the releva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is confined to prima facie adjustments. Accordingly, it was prayed that the orders of the lower authorities be set aside and the exemption claimed by the assessee be allowed. 7. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the CPC and the Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the audit report in Form No. 10BB had admittedly not been furnished within the prescribed due date and, therefore, the assessee failed to satisfy the mandatory statutory condition for claiming exemption under section 10(23C)(vi). It was further submitted that neither the Assessing Officer nor the appellate authority possessed any statutory power to condone the delay in filing Form No. 10BB. The Ld. DR also contended that the adjustment m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....slature itself subsequently stepped in and removed this ambiguity by introducing amendments prescribing the due date with reference to section 139(4C). 8.4 In our considered opinion, the subsequent amendment cannot be pressed into service for construing the legal position as it existed during the year under consideration. It is a settled canon of interpretation that a statutory obligation cannot be imposed retrospectively unless the Legislature has expressly so provided. Equally well settled is the principle that the law does not compel a person to perform an impossibility (lex non cogit ad impossibilia). Where the statute itself did not prescribe a definite time limit applicable to the assessee, the assessee cannot be faulted for not ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Action Research for Health and Socio Economic Development v. CPC, as also various Benches of the Tribunal, have consistently held that procedural requirements relating to filing of prescribed audit reports or statutory forms are directory in nature and should not be permitted to defeat substantive rights where the prescribed reports were ultimately furnished and no prejudice is caused to the Revenue. 8.7 Particularly, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in People's Mobile Hospitals v. CIT(E), while following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Nagpur Hotel Owners' Association, observed that a justice-oriented and pragmatic approach should prevail over a hyper-technical approach while considering procedural delay....