NEW BOMBAY MERCHANTS EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CPC BANGALORE, CPC BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6916/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2026AY 2016-20173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption was premature as it was contingent on the outcome of the condonation petition. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh after considering the decision of the CIT(E).

What were the facts?

The assessee, a charitable trust engaged in educational activities, claimed exemption under Section 11. The exemption was denied because the audit report in Form 10B was not filed on time. A condonation petition for the delay was pending before the CIT(E).

What were the issues?

Whether denial of exemption under Section 11 was justified without awaiting the decision on a pending condonation petition for delayed filing of Form 10B.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 119(2)(b),Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI JAGADISH

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi
For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari (SR. AR.)
Hearing: 12.03.2026Pronounced: 05.05.2026

Per: SHRI JAGADISH, A.M.:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai for the assessment year 2016–17 arising out of the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

ITA No.6916/M/2024 New Bombay Merchants Educational Foundation 2. The brief facts are that the assessee is a charitable trust registered u/s 12A of the Act and engaged in educational activities. The assessee filed its return of income claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The return was processed u/s 143(1) wherein the claim of exemption was denied and income was assessed at Rs. 88,10,900. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the CPC primarily on the ground that the audit report in Form 10B was not filed within the prescribed time and in absence of condonation by the competent authority, exemption u/s 11 could not be allowed.

3.

The Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee had filed a condonation petition u/s 119(2)(b) before the Ld. CIT(E) for delay in filing Form 10B and the same was pending consideration. It was contended that the denial of exemption u/s 11 is dependent upon the outcome of such condonation petition and therefore the authorities below were not justified in confirming the addition without awaiting the decision of the Ld. CIT(E).

4.

The Ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the lower authorities.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee has filed a condonation petition before the Ld. CIT(E) u/s 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of delay in filing audit report in Form 10B. The allowability of exemption u/s 11 is contingent upon the outcome of such petition. In these facts, adjudication of the issue by the Ld. CIT(A) without the decision of the Ld. CIT(E) was premature.

6.

In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the issue afresh after taking into consideration the decision of the Ld. CIT(E) on the condonation petition.

ITA No.6916/M/2024 New Bombay Merchants Educational Foundation 7. The Ld. CIT(E) is directed that, if the condonation petition filed by the assessee u/s 119(2)(b) has not yet been disposed of, the same shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

8.

The assessee is directed to extend full cooperation and furnish all requisite details as may be called for by the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(E).

9.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Order pronounced in the open court on 05/05/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (JAGADISH) Judicial Member Accountant Member

Mumbai, Dated: 05/05/2026 Ashwani Rao Sr. Private Secretary

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT (Appeals) 5. The DR, I.T.A.T. By order

(Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 11

All 7,190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →