S. 119 : Central Board of Direct Taxes-Circular-Property held for charitable purposes-Form No. 10B was filed manually before due date of filing of return-Mandatory e-filing of Form 10B-Delay of 2732 days in filing the form electronically-Delay is condoned-The delay should be condoned as long as such lapse is not mala fide and the assessee has not derived any undue advantage out of his own lapse -Order of CIT(E) rejecting the application for condonation of delay is quashed and set aside. [S. 11, 119 (2)(b), 139(9), 143(1), 154, Art. 226]
The petitioner, an educational trust running schools and colleges, manually filed Form No. 10B for AY 2014-15 within the prescribed time but failed to submit it electronically. The respondent denied exemption under Section 11 without issuing a mandatory show cause notice. The petitioner remained unaware of the reason for denial until informed that Form No. 10B was not e-filed. The petitioner filed rectification applications before CPC in 2016 and 2017, which were rejected. The petitioner also filed rectification application under Section 154 on 2 July 2018 before the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. In the course of rectification proceedings the petitioner was informed that exemption was denied for not up loading the form No 10B electronically. The petitioner up loaded the form 10B on 24 –3 2022 . The petitioner then sought condonation of delay on 30.03.2022 before the CIT(E) , supported by an affidavit from the Chartered Accountant stating she was unawareness of the mandatory e-filing requirement. The CIT(E) rejected the application on 10.10.2024 without granting a hearing. A rectification application was also filed on 12.11.2024 which was similarly dismissed on 13.11.2024 without a hearing. Aggrieved, by the order of rejection the petitioner filed writ petition before the High Court. Honourable Court held that the petitioner is acting on bona fide advice, believed manual filing constituted substantial compliance. The Honourable Court held that the delay should be condoned as long as such lapse is not mala fide and the assesseee has not derived any undue advantage out of his own lapse, length of delay should not be sole consideration . The quality of the explanation offered is crucial and the focus must be the quality of the cause shown in the explanation. Accepting the petitioner’s contention that the delay should be computed from the date of actual intimation, the court condoned the delay and set aside the orders dated 10.10.2024 and 13.11.2024. (WP No. 5420 of 2024 dt. 17.02.2025) (AY. 2014-15)
The Borivali Education Society v. CIT (E) (Bom) (HC). www.itatonline.org .
(Coram : Hon’ble Shri Justice M. S. Sonak & Hon’ble Shri Justice Jitendra Jain)