MANAGINGBODYOF SHRI HARYANA GAUSHALA,HANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD EXEMPTION, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

P a g e | 1 ITA No.14/Del/2026 Managing body of shri Haryana Gaushala (AY: 2021-22) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGAESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.14/Del/2026 (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Managingbodyof Shri Vs. ITO, Ward, Exemption Haryana Gaushala Rohtak, Haryana Haryana – 125033 124001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AABTM6451C Appellant .. Respondent

Appellant by : Sh. Suresh Gupta, CA Respondent by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing 12.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement 05.08.2026

O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 01.01.2025 of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-2 Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in DIN & Order No : ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1071767781(1) arising out of the intimation order

P a g e | 2 ITA No.14/Del/2026 Managing body of shri Haryana Gaushala (AY: 2021-22) dated 26.10.2022 u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by AO, CPC, Bengaluru, for AY: 2021-22.

P a g e | 3 ITA No.14/Del/2026 Managing body of shri Haryana Gaushala (AY: 2021-22) “10. We don’t countenance this action of Ld. CIT(A) for the reason that in a plethora of decisions, the Hon’ble Constitutional Courts have held that filing of Audit Report in Form No.10B before the due date couldn’t disentitle the assessee-Trust from exemption claimed u/s.11 of the Act because the filing of Form 10B is directory to facilitate the assessment and not mandatory. In this regard, we note the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Xavier Kelavani Mandal (P.) Ltd., reported in [2014] 41 taxmann.com 184 (Guj. HC), wherein the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court followed the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Shahzedanand Charity Trust reported in [1997] 228 ITR 292, wherein, it has been held that benefit of exemption should not be denied merely on account of delay in furnishing the Audit Report and it is permissible for the assessee to produce the Audit Report at a later stage either before the ITO or before the Appellate Authority by showing sufficient cause. In this context, we also note the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. SPIC Educational Foundation [TCA No.1593 of 2008 dated 12.12.2018], wherein, the Hon’ble High Court has held that Filing of Form 10 [for accumulation of income u/s.11(2) of the Act] which was filed beyond due date couldn’t disentitle the Trust from exemption claimed u/s.11 of the Act. The Hon’ble Court directed the AO to examine the benefit of admissibility rather than to foreclose the claim of assessee on technicalities. We also take note of the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in ITA No.302/Del/2024 for AY 2022-23 dated 21.11.2024 wherein the Tribunal has held that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in disallowing the exemption claimed u/s.11 of the Act on similar ground i.e. assessee belatedly filed Form No.10B. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO/CPC to examine the Form 10B filed by the assessee and decide the claim of exemption u/s.11 of the Act and pass order in accordance to law.”

impugned order is set aside and ld. AO/CPC is directed to take into

consideration for Form 10B filed by the assesse and decide the claim of

exemption u/s 11 of the Act in accordance with law and pass order afresh.

Order pronounced in the open court on 05.08.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (M Balaganesh) (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

P a g e | 4 ITA No.14/Del/2026 Managing body of shri Haryana Gaushala (AY: 2021-22) Dated 05.08.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS