SIKAR CHARITABLE TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD EXEMP, 2(2), DELHI, NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7780/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sikar Charitable Trust Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward B 60/61, C/o Bajaj Auto Exmp,2(2), Delhi Ltd, Naraina Industrial Area Phase-II, New Delhi 110028 PAN: AAATS1747C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Mrs. Vasanti Ben Patel, Advocate & Shri Mahender Gohel, CA Department by Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR Date of hearing 27.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 29.04.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2021-22, arises against the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 [in short, the “CIT(A)], Kolkata’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1082432830(1), dated 10.11.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

ITA No.7780/Del/2025 2. It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings u/s. 143(1)/154 of the Act denying section 11 exemption as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. Both the learned lower authorities have attributed the assessee/appellant’s failure in filing its Form 10B tax audit report on or before the “due” date of filing return under section 139(1) of the Act as the sole reason for rejecting its impugned exemption claim. 3. The Revenue’s case accordingly is that the aforesaid compliance of filing/uploading of its Form 10B Tax Audit Report is mandatory in nature the assessee’s and failure to the very effect disentitles it from claiming the impugned section 11 exemption. It is not in dispute that the assessee had got prepared and filed/uploaded its aforesaid tax audit report on 10.06.2022. Various judicial precedents, i.e. Chandraprabhu Jain Swetamber Mandir vs. Assistant CIT (2017) 82 taxmann.com 245 (Mumbai); & Income-tax Officer vs. Serum Institute of India Research Foundation (2018) 169 ITD 271 (Pune)/(2018) 195 TTJ 820 (Pune) have already settled the issue that the aforesaid compliance is directory rather than mandatory in nature. Hon’ble Gujrat high court in CIT vs. Xavier Kelavani Mandal (P.) Ltd. (2014) 41 2 | P a g e

ITA No.7780/Del/2025 taxmann.com 184 (Gujrat) and CIT vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industry (1993) 201 ITR 325 (Gujarat) has further concluded the very issue in favour of the assessee and against the department. We thus accept the assessee’s sole substantive ground raised in the instant appeal in principle and direct the learned assessing authority to frame its consequential computation as per law after due verification of all the relevant facts. No other ground or argument has been pressed. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29/04/2026 Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29th April, 2026. NV/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

3 | P a g e