DELHI BROTHERHOOD SOCIETY,,COURT LANE,DELHI vs. ITO, EXMP 1(3), DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWALAssessment Year: 2017-18 Delhi Brotherhood Society, 7, Court Lane, Delhi Vs. Appellate Tribunal, Income Tax Office, New Delhi PAN:AAATD0880H (Appellant)
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A)-
1,
Jaipur’s
DIN and order no.
ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-
25/1065178613(1), dated 28.05.2024 involving proceedings under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
2. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
Assessee by None
Department by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Date of hearing
24.04.2025
Date of pronouncement
16.05.2025
2 | P a g e
Mr. Dhanesta vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have rightly rejected the assessee’s section 11 exemption claim thereby making addition of Rs. 2,74,70,165/- for want of timely compliance of uploading of Form 10B tax audit report in section 143(1) processing dated 30th March, 2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. His case in this factual backdrop is that the above compliance of filing/uploading Form 10B tax audit report is mandatory in nature. 4. Now come the basic relevant facts. A perusal of the case file indicates that the assessee had filed its return on 03.11.2017 claiming section 11 exemption and thereafter; its form 10B tax audit report was belatedly uploaded on 23rd November, 2018 i.e. much before the CPC’s processing in its case on 31st March, 2019. The Revenue’s case accordingly is that we need to uphold the learned lower authorities’ action disallowing section 11 exemption for its default in ensuring timely mandatory compliance of filing Form 10B tax audit report on or before the due date of filing section 139(1) return. All these facts make it clear that the assessee had very well filed the tax audit report in Form 10B before the CPC’s processing. That being the case, we hereby quote CIT vs. Xavier 3 | P a g e
Kelavani Mandal (P.) Ltd., [2014] 41 taxmann.com 184 (Guj.) to conclude that once their lordships have already settled the issue in assessee’s favour and against the department, thereby holding the above compliance as directory provision, the learned lower authorities’ action rejecting section 11 exemption is hereby reversed in very terms. Learned Assessing Officer is directed to frame its consequential computation in assessee’s case after verifying all the relevant facts as per law.
5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16th May, 2025 (MANISH AGARWAL)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 16th May, 2025. RK/-