Assessee-trust, registered under section 12AA, filed its return for Assessment year 2020-21 claiming exemption under section 11 and uploaded Form 10B along with the return. AY 2020-21 was the first year when the due date for uploading Form 10B was preponed by one month prior to the return due date, resulting in a delay of 31 days in filing Form 10B.Return was processed, and a tax demand was raised due to denial of exemption consequent to belated filing of Form 10B. Assessee filed an application before CIT (E) under section 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of 31-day delay in filing Form 10B, explaining COVID-19 lockdown difficulties and inadvertence due to newly preponed due date. CIT (E) rejected the application relying on CBDT Circular No. 16\/2024 dated 18 November 2024, which stipulates that no condonation shall be entertained beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year and applies to applications filed on or after 18 November 2024; the assessee\u2019s application was filed after that date and beyond three years. On writ the Court held that since delay was only of 31 days and it was first year when due date to file audit report was preponed by one month and during such time, there was a lockdown announced by Government, there was a reasonable cause for delay of 31 days in filing of Form No. 10B by assessee by\u00a0 not condoning delay would cause genuine hardships to assessee inasmuch as assessee had been denied exemption under section 11 and a demand of Rs. 78,51,920\/-had been raised for belated filing of audit report in Form No. 10B. Accordingly the order passed under section 119(2)(b) was quashed and set aside and delay of 31 days in filing of Form No. 10B was condoned. (AY. 2020-21)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 119 : Central Board of Direct Taxes-Circular-Charitable trust-Delay of 31 days in filing Form N0 10B-Registration-Order rejecting the application for condonation of delay was quashed and set aside. [S.12AA, 119(2)(b), 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_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-65254","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-gYu","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65254","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=65254"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65254\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":65255,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65254\/revisions\/65255"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65254"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65254"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65254"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}