TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1560
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....19(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the I.T. Act") for Assessment Year 2020-21. By the impugned order, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai (Respondent No. 1) rejected the application filed by the Petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 30 days in filing Form No. 10B by relying upon a Circular issued by the CBDT, being Circular No. 16/2024 dated 18th November 2024. This Circular stipulates that no application for delay in filing of Form No. 9A/10/10B/10BB shall be entertained beyond the period of three years from the end of the Assessment Year for which such application is made. The Circular also makes it clear that this time limit would apply for any applications that are filed on or after the date of the Circular, nam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the amendment to Section 12A(1)(b) introduced by the Finance Act, 2020, the requirement of furnishing the Audit Report in Form No. 10B was changed from filing the same along with the Return of Income to filing it one month prior to the due date for filing the Return of Income. Consequently, for A.Y. 2020-21, the due date for filing Form No. 10B stood extended up to 15th January 2021, whereas the due date for filing the Return of Income stood extended up to 15th February 2021. 5. The Petitioner is a comparatively new trust and A.Y. 2020-21 was only its second year of operations. The Petitioner filed its Return of Income for the relevant Assessment Year on 9th February 2021 under Section 139(1) of the I.T. Act. In view of the newly in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....came aware of the same upon receipt of a recovery communication dated 1st October 2024 issued by Respondent No. 3, stating that demand for A.Y. 2020-21 was outstanding and calling upon the Petitioner to either pay the demand or furnish details of rectification, appeal effect, or stay application, if any. Upon verification of the records and after obtaining professional advice, the Petitioner came to understand that Form No. 10B had not been considered while processing the Return of Income under Section 143(1) of the I.T. Act, resulting in denial of exemption claimed under Section 11 of the Act. 8. It is in these circumstances that on 4th February 2025, the Petitioner filed an Application before Respondent No. 1 under Section 119(2)(b) of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on behalf of the Respondents and have perused the material on record. We find that the Respondents, in their Affidavit-in-Reply dated 4th August 2026, have themselves clarified that an Application for condonation of delay in filing of Form 9A/10/10B/10BB beyond three years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year can be made before the CBDT. We further note from the record that the Petitioner, being conscious of the aforesaid legal position, has already filed an Application for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act before the CBDT on 24th June 2025, which is stated to be pending consideration. 11. Though we are mindful of the fact that the Petitioner has already filed an Application before the CBDT seeking a condona....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de. 12. This apart, not condoning such delay would cause a genuine hardship to the Petitioner inasmuch as the Petitioner had been denied exemption under Section 11 of the I.T. Act and a demand of Rs. 27,35,970/- has been raised for belated filing of the Audit Report in Form No. 10B. One of the relevant considerations for condoning delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T. Act is to consider the genuine hardships which an Assessee will face if the delay is not condoned. We derive support from the decision of this Court in the case of Sitaldas K. Motwani v. DIT (International Taxation) [2010] 187 Taxman 44, the relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder: "15. The phrase "genuine hardship" used in Section 119(2)(b) should ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he applicant, mere delay should not defeat the claim for refund." 13. A similar issue was considered by this Court in the case of Mirae Asset Foundation v. Pr. CIT [2025] 176 taxmann.com 345. Paragraph 5 of the said order is reproduced hereunder: "5. As far as the condonation of delay is concerned, we find that admittedly there was only 24 days delay in filing Form 10B. It is true that the application seeking condonation of delay was filed after about 9 months. However, we find that this delay is not such that should deny the Petitioner from filing Form 10B with a delay of 24 days. We find that if this delay is not condoned, there will be genuine hardship to the Petitioner, inasmuch as, the Petitioner would be denied the exempti....