AATI PICHRA MAHILA AVAM BUJURG VIKASH MUNCH,. vs. EXEMPTIONS WARD FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 621/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 August 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the requirement to file Form 10B is directory, not mandatory, citing a Gujarat High Court precedent. Therefore, the disallowance of the Section 11 exemption based solely on this procedural lapse was deemed incorrect.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals for assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 arose from orders disallowing Section 11 exemption claims. The reason for disallowance was the failure to file/upload the prescribed Form 10B tax audit report within the due date of filing the Section 139(1) return.

What were the issues?

Whether the failure to file Form 10B within the due date for filing the return of income renders the Section 11 exemption claim invalid, or if such compliance is merely directory.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 11,Section 139(1),Section 10B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Adv. Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Adv
Hearing: 13.08.2025Pronounced: 13.08.2025

Date of hearing 13.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 13.08.2025 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM These assessee’s twin appeals & 622/Del/2025 for assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Jaipur’s orders, both dated 20.01.2025 having DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1072325559(1) and ITBA/APL/S/ 250/2024-25/1072325690(1), involving proceedings under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

2.

Suffice to say, it transpires during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have disallowed section 11 exemption claim(s) to the assessee; involving varying sums for the sole reason that it could not file/upload the prescribed 10B tax audit report within “due” date of filing section 139(1) return. The Revenue vehemently argues that the impugned disallowance of section 11 exemption deserves to be upheld as the above compliance is mandatory in nature.

3.

We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant sole substantive grievance in light of CIT vs. Xavier Kelavani Mandal (P.) Ltd., [2014] 41 taxmann.com 184 (Guj.) has already settled the issue in assessee’s favour that the foregoing compliance of filing/upholding form 10B tax audit report is only directory than mandatory in nature. That being the case, we find merit in the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance and direct the learned Assessing Officer to frame its consequential computation as per law after verifying all the relevant facts.

More judgments on Section 11

All 7,190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →