TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1400
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to the facts of the case. 2. That the learned AO has erred in not allowing the Appellant's rightful exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act, and in consequently raising a demand of Rs. 3,65,200/- vide the impugned intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act, solely on account of an alleged delay of 22 days in furnishing the audit report in Form 10B. The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the same without proper appreciation of facts and law. 3. That the denial of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act on account of delay in filing Form 10B is wholly unjustified. The Appellant had filed Form 10B on 29.10.2022, prior to the issuance of the intimation under Section 143(1) dated 28.03.2023. It is a settled position that where Form 10B is available on record of the revenue/respondents prior to the issuance of intimation under Section 143(1), the exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied merely on account of delay in filing the said form. 4. That, in any event, the delay was occasioned due to genuine and bona fide reasons, namely that the director of the trust underwent knee surgery on 29.07.2022 and remained immobile for approxim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the above grounds are independent of and without prejudice to one another." 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a section 8 company duly registered under the Companies Act, 2013 and also registered u/s 12A and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee company filed its return of income claiming exemption u/s 11 of the IT Act which was processed u/s 143(1) of the IT Act on 28.03.2023 by denying the exemption u/s 11 of the IT Act, since the audit report in Form 10B was not furnished at least one month prior to the due date for furnishing return of income u/s 139(1) of the IT Act. The assessee also filed rectification u/s 154 of the IT Act on 14.08.2023, however, the CPC issued revised intimation order with no change. 4. Being aggrieved with the above intimation order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Not being satisfied with the reply and submissions of the assessee company, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the pape....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e submitted that since the assessee has filed the audit report in Form-10B during the appellate proceedings and the return of income was furnished on 24-11-2017 (which is filed within the due date for AY. 2016- 17 i.e. 31-03-2018) before the intimation order was passed by the CPC and Form-10 was also filed electronically on 21-06-2019 (page 30-31 of the paper book refers), therefore, the claim of exemption u/s. 11 should not be denied. 5.1. In support of his above contention, the Ld.AR relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Pune Tribunal in the case of Indian Medical Association, Pune Branch vs. DCIT(E) in ITA No.761 to 766/PUN/2025, dt.31-07-2025 wherein the Tribunal in turn relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Laxmanarayan Dev Shrishan Seva Khendra (2024) 167 taxmann.com 548 (Guj) and allowed the appeal of the assessee, condoning the delay in filing of Form-10B. 5.2. The Ld.AR further submitted that delay in filing of Form-10B is merely a procedural lapse and relying on the settled judicial principles, and CBDT Circular No. 14(XL-35), dt. 11-04-1955 submitted that the assessee's claim of exemption u/s. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt while holding so, has also distinguished the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Wipro Ltd. [2022] 446 ITR 1(SC), which has been relied by the Ld.ADDL/JCIT(A) in his impugned order to dismiss the appeal of the assessee. The relevant extract of the order of the Tribunal in the case of Indian Medical Association, Pune Branch vs. DCIT(E) (supra) is reproduced below: "16. We find the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Laxmanarayan Dev Shrishan Seva Khendra (supra) has held that where the assessee, a public charitable trust, did not upload audit report in Form 10B along with its return of income and CPC processed return under section 143(1) denying benefit of section 11, since assessee had already filed audit report in Form 10B electronically during pendency of appellate proceedings along with copy of audited financial statements, delay in filing said form was to be condoned. The relevant observations of Hon'ble High Court read as under: 7. Reference to the aforesaid decision has no connection whatsoever remotely to the facts of the present case and therefore, in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal has rightly ....