SKI STAR FOUNDATION,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

However, the assessee did not file Audit Report in Form No.10B along with the return of income and it was filed belatedly. Accordingly, in an intimation u/s. 143(1), CPC denied the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s. 11 of the Act. The rectification request u/s. 154 of the Act filed by the assessee was also rejected. Consequently, the assessee filed application with the CIT (Exemptions) seeking condonation of delay in filing of Form No.10B.

In the meanwhile, the assessee preferred further appeal against intimation issued u/s 154 and submitted that filing of Form 10B was only directory and not mandatory requirement and belated filing of audit report should not have resulted in denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that CBDT has delegated the power of condonation of delay to CIT(Exemptions) or Chief Commissioners of Income tax. The assessee already filed condonation of application before CIT (Exemptions), Chennai on 07.03.2021 which was pending for disposal. Nevertheless, the action of CPC was correct on the facts of the case and the assessee was free to follow up with CIT (Exemptions) for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed against which the assessee is in further appeal before us.

We concur with the findings that filing of Audit Report in Form No.10B was mandatory requirement to claim exemption u/s 11. However, since the assessee’s application for condonation was already pending before appropriate authority, Ld. CIT(A) should have waited for disposal of the same before rejecting the assessee’s appeal - 3 - since the same would have direct bearing on assessee’ claim. Therefore, we restore the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to pass the appellate order after considering the outcome of assessee’s condonation application.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 07th February, 2023.