KHUBI RAM RAM SARAN DAS DHARMADA TRUST ,DELHI vs. PR. CIT (E), DELHI

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that while processing the return u/s 143(1) CPC, Bengaluru denied exemption claimed u/s 11 for the reason that audit report was filed belatedly. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to page 25 of the Paper Book

I.T.A.No.1795/Del/2021 submits that the Assessing Officer passed rectification order allowing the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act based on an order passed u/s 119(2)(b) of I.T. Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), New Delhi who has condoned the delay in submissions of Form No. 10B for the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, it is submitted that in view of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) u/s 119(2)(b) condoning the delay in submission of audit report and Form 10B the Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) is not justified in sustaining the order passed by the CPC, Bengaluru u/s 143(1) in denying the exemption u/s 11 of the Act.

Ld. DR fairly submitted that an order u/s 119(2)(b) was passed condoning the delay in submission of Form No. 10B for the assessment year under consideration by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) and the Assessing Officer following the said order allowed the relief claimed by the assessee.

On hearing both the sides and perusing the order of the authorities below and the rectification order of the Assessing Officer passed u/s 154 it is very much clear that the Ld. CIT(A)(Exemption), New Delhi passed an order u/s 119(2)(b) condoning the delay in submission of Form No. 10B by the assessee for the AY 2017-18. Based on the said order the Ld. Assessing Officer rightly passed rectification order dated 19.03.2021 allowing the exemption claimed u/s 11 by the assessee. Hence, the I.T.A.No.1795/Del/2021 order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the order of the CPC, Bengaluru is not sustainable. Hence, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.