GET FIT THRU SPORTS FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2825/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2026AY 2021-227 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing Form 10B, allowing the assessee to claim exemption under Section 11. However, the allowability of the claimed expenses requires factual verification by the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a Section 8 company, claimed exemption under Section 11 but filed its return of income and Form 10B beyond the due dates. The CPC denied the exemption and disallowed expenses, which was upheld by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether delay in filing Form 10B can be condoned to allow exemption under Section 11, and whether claimed expenses are deductible.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 139,Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM

Hearing: 27.05.2026

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण�ायपीठमुंबईम�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM I.T.A. No.2825/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Get Fit Thru Sports Asst. Director of Income Tax CPC Foundation Bengaluru G-1, Parekh Plaza, Vallabh Bhai Vs. Centralized Processing Unit, Income Road, Vile Parle (West), Tax Department, Karnataka-560500 Mumbai-400056 PAN: AAGC68066R Assessee- अपीलाथ� / Appellant Revenue-��थ�/ Respondent :

Assesseeby : Shri Shalin S. Divatia : Smt. B. Brahma Vidya – Sr. DR Revenueby : 11.05.2026 Date of Hearing : 27.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement

O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: This appeal is preferred by the assessee, directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals – ADDL/JCIT (A)-2 Ahmedabad [in short, “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 23.02.2026 for the assessment year 2021-22, arises from the intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”] dated 08.12.2022, passed by Centralized Processing Center, Bengaluru [in short, “the CPC”].The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, are as under:

ITA No. 2825/Mum/2026 Get Fit Thru Sports Foundation “1.The Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the Order of the Assessing Officer, CPC denying exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Without Prejudice to ground No.1 and in the alternative The learned CIT (Appeals) confirming the order of the Assessing officer, CPC in computing the taxable Income without allowing deduction of expenses of Rs.6,60,308/-Incurred by the assessee.”

2.

The present appeal arises against the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), challenging the issue that The Central Processing Centre (CPC) issued an intimation under Section 143(1)of the Act, 1961dated 8th December 2022, raising a demand of Rs. 44,751/- after disallowing expenses of Rs. 6,60,308/- claimed by the assessee and denying exemption under Section 11 of the Act, 1961, due to the delay in filing Form 10B. The appellant’s application for rectification under Section 154 was also rejected by the AO, CPC. In this case, the appellant, Get Fit Thru Sports Foundation, is a Section 8 company registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, engaged in the promotion of sports and games. The appellant has filed its return of income for A.Y. 2021-22 on 31.03.2022 beyond the due date. The due date for filing of ITR is 15.03.2022.

3.

Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations:

“7.9 In view of the above facts and discussion, the appellant’s inability to furnish Form 10B within the permissible extended period negates its claim for exemption under Section 11of the Act, 1961. The statutory provisions, CBDT instructions and judicial dicta collectively demonstrate that the timeline is mandatory and not merely directory. Even though the pandemic created practical difficulties, the law does not provide for indefinite relaxation and the appellant’s delay cannot be condoned merely on equitable grounds in the absence of statutory support. The appellant has failed to adhere to the mandatory statutory conditions necessary for claiming exemption under Section 11.The exemption regime under Section 11 of the Actis a benevolent provision intended to promote genuine charitable and religious activities. However, such benefits must be 2

ITA No. 2825/Mum/2026 Get Fit Thru Sports Foundation availed strictly within the framework of law and with full compliance of statutory conditions. Laxity in application, non-genuine expenditure, inadequate documentation, or delayed statutory filings cannot be condoned, as they undermine the objectives of accountability, transparency, and proper utilization of charitable income. The Revenue’s stance in both matters is thus consistent with the statutory schemeand supported by judicial principles. The appellant has not satisfied the mandatory requirements, both substantive and procedural, prescribed under the Income-tax Act for claiming exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer’s decisions to disallow the expenditure of Rs. 6,60,308/- and to deny exemption due to belated filing of Form 10B are well-reasoned, legally sound and in consonance with the overarching legislative intent to protect revenue and ensure disciplined compliance by charitable institutions. I find no infirmity in the order passed by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, ground raised by the appellant is dismissed.”

4.

Being aggrieved, assessee preferred the instant appeal before us.

5.

At the outset, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted the issue is squarely covered by the following decisions:

ITAT Mumbai ‘C’ Bench, in the case of P.K.Krishnan Education Trust i. in ITA number 3533/Mum/2023 Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DDIT(E) Inv. vs Petroleum ii. Sport Promotion Board, 362 ITR 235 (Delhi) ITAT Jodhpur, in the case of Kshatriya Kacheti Teli Samaj, iii. ITA415/JODH/ 2023. ITAT Delhi, in the case of Care Foundation in ITA 3746/ DEL/2023 iv.

6.

It is submitted that, denial of exemption under Section 11 and claim of expenditure legitimately incurred by the assessee was an error on the part of Ld. CIT(A). Further, the rejection of rectification application of assessee u/s 154 by the Ld. AO was against the principles of law. Therefore, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is liable to be set aside and the disallowance made, while processing the return under Section 143(1) was to be reversed.

ITA No. 2825/Mum/2026 Get Fit Thru Sports Foundation 7. Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR, representing the revenue, strongly supported the orders of revenue authorities.

8.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on the record. On perusal of the grounds No.1 raised by the revenue before the ITAT in the case of P. K. Krishnan Educational Trust (supra), we find that the issue herein is identical to the issue in case relied upon. The relevant ground in the said appeal was as under:

1.

Weather on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing the exemption under section 11 the act, ignoring the fact that there was a clear-cut violation in view of Form 10B (Audit Report) not being filed within the extended time for the said A.Y. 2021-22 as stipulated in CBDT circular number 01/2022 in F.No. 225/49/2021/ITA-II dated 11.01.2022?

9.

The issue herein is also identical to the issue in the aforesaid appeal, the only difference is that the appellant in this case is the assessee, whereas in the case of P.K. Krishnan Education Trust (supra) the revenue was the appellant. The difference in the case relied upon and the case before us is that the 10B report in the said case was filed on 14th March 2022, whereas in the present case the assessee has filed the 10th report on 31st March 2022. The due date for filing of form 10B in both the cases was 15th January 2022, as per CBDT’s circular referred to, however was further extended up to 28th February, 2022.

ITA No. 2825/Mum/2026 Get Fit Thru Sports Foundation 10. The issue in the case of P.K. Krishnan Education Trust (supra) was decided by the tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by condoning the delay in filing of Form 10B. The relevant observations of the tribunal are as under: “13. The impugned assessment year is assessment year 2021-22, the learned CITA has considered the issue in earlier assessment year. However, CBDT has extended due date of filing of the return of income my press release dated 9/9/2021 as under :- 5. The duedate of furnishing of Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2021-22, which is 30th November, 2021 under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act, as extended to 31st December, 2021 vide Circular No.9/2021 dated 20-5-2021, is hereby further extended to 28th February, 2022; 6. The duedate of furnishing of belated/revised Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2021-22, which is 31st December, 2021 under sub-section (4)/sub-section (5) of section 139 of the Act, as extended to 31st January, 2022, vide Circular No.9/2021 dated 20-5-2021, is hereby further extended to 31st March, 2022; 014. Therefore, the extended time limit available to the assessee for the due date of filing of the return of income was 28 February 2022. Admittedly assessee filed return of income on 14/3/2022 and also furnished form number 10 B along with that. Therefore, the due date for filing of form number 10 B was one month prior to the due date of filing of the return of income i.e. 31 January 2022. As, the due date of filing of the return have been extended by the CBDT, the delay caused in filing form number 10 B is minimal and also due to the uncertainty of the due date of filing of the return which is duly extended by CBDT. Identical issue arose before the coordinate bench in case of Kedar Nath Saraf Charity Trust [2024] 161 taxmann.com 671 (Kolkata - Trib.) albeit for assessment year 2021 -22 wherein coordinate bench held as under:- 4.1. It is an admitted fact that from March, 2020 to March, 2022, country was passing through Covid Pandemic and there were various restriction on the movements of the citizens and carrying out of the normal official works was hindered. It is also an accepted fact that many changes have been brought into the Act regarding procedure of filing of income-tax return as well as audit reports and certain technical glitches have been faced time and again. Also on account of change of the utility of furnishing the reports, the forms and change in the due dates have given rise to delay in furnishing of details and documents with the revenue authorities. Considering these aspects, CBDT firstly came up with a Notification dt. 03/01/2020 authorising the Commissioners to of admit applications condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10B for Assessment Year 2018-19 and subsequent Assessment Years, where there is a delay of up to 365 days. Subsequently on 19/07/2022 i.e., after the end of the Covid Pandemic restrictions again a Circular 16/2022 was issued where the delays in filing of Form 10B 5

ITA No. 2825/Mum/2026 Get Fit Thru Sports Foundation beyond 365 days but upto three years were also directed to be considered for admitting the application for condonation of delay. This Circular in itself shows that the Income-tax Department was aware about the technical glitches and the problems faced by the tax-payers in furnishing various types of Forms including Form No. 10B is with regard to the furnishing of audit report in case of Trusts and Societies. In the instant case since, delay is merely 28 days, we find that the said delay deserves to be ignored in larger interest of justice. The assessee is thus entitled to claim exemption u/s 11 of the Act made in the Income- tax return e-filed by it. We further fund support from the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Bangarh Educational Welfare Trust v. ITO (Exemptions) in ITA No. 496/Kol/2021; Assessment Year 2018-19, order dt. 02/01/2022, wherein also similar issue was raised for Assessment Year 2018-19 and the return was filed within time limit prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act but there was a delay in furnishing of the auditreport on Form 10B and this Tribunal after considering the facts of the case as well as judicial precedents allowed the benefit of Section 11 & 12 of the Act to the assessee." 015. Coordinate bench held that up to March 2022, the country was passing through pandemic. The due dates for filing of the return of income as well as compliance made by the assessee also falls during that period. In view of this, we find that the delay caused in filing of number 10 B deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, as indicated above, the learned CIT - A was correct in allowing the appeal of the assessee.”

11.

We thus, in terms of observations find, it appropriate to condone the delay in filing of Form 10B in the present case. Accordingly, the assessee would be entitled to exemption u/s 11, which was denied only on account of delay in filing of Form 10B. We therefore note that the expenses incurred by the assessee would be eligible for deduction under the provisions of section 11 and 12 of the Act. However, the factual verification of expenditure needs to be undertaken by the Ld. AO, therefore, the matter is restored back to the file of Ld. Assessing Officer for verification of expenditure incurred by the assessee and entitlement of such expenditure under the provisions of section 11 of the Act. 12. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed to the extent of condonation of delay in filing of Form 10B. However, the allowability of 6

ITA No. 2825/Mum/2026 Get Fit Thru Sports Foundation expenditure incurred by the assessee trust would be subject to factual verification. 13. In result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed, in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 27-05-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ARUN KHODPIA) (BEENA PILLAI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated : 27-05-2026. Ankit K., Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. Guard File 5. CIT

BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt. 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 →