{"id":60580,"date":"2026-06-08T13:05:21","date_gmt":"2026-06-08T07:35:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/vesava-koli-samaj-shikshan-sanstha-v-cit-e-2025-307-taxman-83-bom-hc\/"},"modified":"2026-06-08T13:05:21","modified_gmt":"2026-06-08T07:35:21","slug":"vesava-koli-samaj-shikshan-sanstha-v-cit-e-2025-307-taxman-83-bom-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/vesava-koli-samaj-shikshan-sanstha-v-cit-e-2025-307-taxman-83-bom-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Vesava Koli Samaj Shikshan Sanstha v. CIT (E) (2025) 307 Taxman 83 (Bom.)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Assessee, a charitable trust running an educational institution, filed its return for the relevant year declaring NIL income. Audit report in Form 10B was obtained in time but uploaded late due to the inadvertence of the auditor&#8217;s accountant. CPC issued an intimation under section 143(1) raising demand. Assessee applied for condonation of 181 days\u2019 delay in filing Form 10B under section 119(2)(b). CIT(E)\u00a0\u00a0 rejected the application for condonation of delay on the ground that there was no reasonable cause and non-filing within the due date. The Court held that since the delay was neither deliberate nor mala fide but was on account of the inadvertence of the accountant of auditor, and the assessee had otherwise complied with statutory requirements, obtained the audit report in time, and filed it immediately upon noticing the lapse. High Court quashed the order under section 119(2)(b)of the Act and the delay of 181 days in filing Form No. 10B was\u00a0 condoned. (AY. 2019-20)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 119: Central Board of Direct Taxes-Circular-Audit report in Form 10B  was obtained in time and uploaded with a delay of 181 days-Mistake of the accountant of the Auditor-Delay was condoned-Order of CIT(E) was quashed and set aside.[S. 11, 12, 119(2)(b),143(1)  form No 10B, Art. 226]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-60580","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-fL6","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60580","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=60580"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60580\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":60581,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60580\/revisions\/60581"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60580"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60580"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60580"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}