SUR NIRMAN EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL SOCIETY,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2375/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 June 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the belated filing of Form 10B is a directory, not a mandatory, provision, based on the case law CIT vs. Xavier Kelavani Mandal. Therefore, the disallowance of Section 11 benefits solely on this ground was incorrect.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 arose from an order confirming assessment proceedings under Section 154. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned. The core issue was the disallowance of Section 11 benefits due to belated filing of Form 10B.

What were the issues?

Whether the belated filing of Form 10B can be a sole reason for disallowing benefits under Section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 11,Section 12,Section 139(1),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 244A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: CA Ms. Tripti Devi, CA
Hearing: 05.06.2025Pronounced: 05.06.2025

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1068746998(1), dated 17.09.2024 involving proceedings under section 154 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

The delay of 131 days in filing the assessee’s instant appeal is condoned in light of larger interest of justice as well as Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

3.

This assessee’s appeal raises the following substantive grounds: “1. That the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre u/s 250 in confirming the assessment passed u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act' 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") is contrary to the facts and law on the point.

1.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in disallowance of the benefit u/s 11 of the Act even after filing of Form 10B, though filed after return but before the finalization of assessment by Assessing Officer, merely on surmises and conjectures.

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether can it be said that merely belated filing of Form 10B render the disallowance of all the benefits allowable to the appellate Charitable Organization u/s 11 & 12 of the Act.

4.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether can it be said that merely belated filing of Form 10B render all the expenses incurred by the appellate Society applied towards the main object of the Society as disallowable.

5.

That any consequential relief to which the appellant may be entitled under the foregoing grounds, including relief, in the levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 244A of the Act may be granted. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary or delete any/all the Grounds of Appeal

during the course of appellate proceedings.

4. A perusal of the assessee’s above extracted pleadings indicates that both the learned lower authorities have refused to its section 11 exemption claim for the sole reason of belated filing of tax audit report Form 10B, on or before the due date of filing of section 139(1) return. The Revenue’s case accordingly is that the

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →