SMT VIDHYA VATI MISHRA MEMORIAL LOK NYAS,CITY CENTRE, NEAR D B CITY vs. ADDL/JCIT (A)-2, NOIDA, NOIDA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (DB) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 114/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt Vidhya Vati Mishra Vs. Addl/JCIT (A)-2, Noida,-201301 Memorial Lok Nyas, Prathvi Nagar, Gwalior-474006 PAN : AABAS0252J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rajendra Sharma & Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv. Department by Shri Harsh Siddharth Gautam, Sr (DR)

Date of hearing 23.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 21.05.2026 ORDER

PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 27.10.2025 passed in Appeal No NFAC/2016-17/10212137 by the ld Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act), for the A.Y. 2017-18, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal against the rectification order dated 30.01.2023 passed u/s. 154 of the Act. 2. At the very outset, it is noticed that according to the report submitted by the registry, the appeal is time barred by 37 days. Ld representative for the appellant assessee has drawn the attention of the bench towards

ITA No.114/Agr/2026 assessee’s delay condonation application, wherein, it has been stated that the said delay is caused due to change of assessee’s advocate, who was handed over the impugned appellate order by the former advocate, late. The application supported with the affidavit filed by Mr. Amit Dubey, principal officer of assessee (A.O.P). In view of the cause supported with affidavit, we treat the cause of delay as sufficient and condone the said delay of 37 days in filing this appeal. The appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. The facts in brief, are that the appellant assessee is a registered educational society engaged in providing education. The assessee society is registered u/s 12AA of the Act. The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 31.10.2017, declaring total income at nil. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act by CPC on 24.03.2019 at assessed income of Rs. 2,82,12,774/-. Subsequently, assessee filed rectification petition on 27.04.2019, which was rejected by CPC on 07.06.2019. Thereafter a letter was issued on 17.05.2022, raising demand of Rs. 1,25,24,322/-. In response to this letter, assessee again filed the rectification application, stating that the assessee trust is registered u/s 12(AA) running educational institutions and claimed exemption u/s. 11 of the Act, submitting that the CPC has wrongly disallowed the exemption claimed u/s. 10(23C)(iiiad). Further, a query letter was issued on 12.12.2022, stating that the aggregate receipts were more than Rs. 1 crore, hence there was no mistake apparent on record. Assessee submitted reply 2 | P a g e

ITA No.114/Agr/2026 dated 21.12.2022, stating that assessee is a registered institution engaged in educational activities since its inception, and has incurred a sum of Rs. 235.48 lakhs in revenue expenditure and Rs. 29.39 lakhs in capital expenditure against the gross receipts of Rs. 282.12 lakhs. The copy of audited report in form 10B was also submitted. Assessee further submitted that the expenditure so incurred are allowable expenditure. The assessing officer stated that he aforesaid details of expenditure were not found in the income tax return. The audited report in form 10B was furnished only on 21.12.2022 in response to the query letter dated 12.12.2022, whereas assessee had filed ITR without form 10B. Assessee filed audit report in form 10B on 13.06.2022 by a delay of 4 years and 8 months. The condonation of delay application filed by the assessee u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Act before the CIT(Exemption), Bhopal was rejected vide order dated 23.01.2023. In such circumstances the assessing officer did not consider the audit report in form 10B submitted belatedly by the assessee and rejected assessee’s rectification application. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before ld CIT(A) against the rectification order dated 30.01.2023, who dismissed assessee’s appeal, confirming the rectification order. 5. Appellant assessee has raised the following grounds under this appeal:

3 | P a g e

ITA No.114/Agr/2026

“1. The humble appellant is a Regd. Public Charitable Trust engaged in providing education at Bhind since inception. The Ld. AO disallowed all the expenditure in spite of fact that trust is Regd. Vide section 12AA of the Income Tax Act since 2001, only on the basis of delay in filing of form 10B. 2. That the Ld. AO failed to consider the fact that the assessee filed their ITR well within time and delay in filing of Form 10B can not be the sole ground for rejection of exemption under sec 12A. 3. Reason for delay in filing-Clerical omission on part of CAS staff as CA himself was unwell. 4. Crave- The appellant Crave for adding, deleting and or modifying any ground of appeal before its final hearing. 5. Prayer- the appellant pray your to kindly grant relief and for your this kindness he shall remain very grateful.”

ITA No.114/Agr/2026 sole ground for rejection of exemption u/s. 12AA. Ld AR further submitted that the entire receipts ignoring the expenditure, cannot be charged to tax and prayed to allow assessee’s appeal. 9. Ld representative for the respondent revenue has stated that the assessee did not file report in form 10B alongwith the income tax return. It was filed after a delay of 4 years and 8 months. The assessee’s condonation of delay application by CIT(E) was rejected, not finding the cause of delay as sufficient. Ld DR, thus, submits that the revenue authorities are right in not taking the belated audited report into consideration and supports the impugned order. 10. According to the factual matrix, assessee claimed exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iiiad), whereas the aggregate annual receipt from the assessee trust was more than Rs. 1 crore, which was the maximum limit prescribed under the then existing provisions of the Act before amendment. It is true that the expenditure in the relevant column of the ITR was shown to be zero as depicted in tabulated form in the assessment order. This apart, the assessing officer did not take the belatedly filed audit report in form 10B into consideration and did not adjust the expenditures claimed by the assessee due to not being reflected in ITR. It further transpires from the perusal of record that the delay condonation prayer of the assessee in filing audit report in form 10B was rejected by CIT(E) Bhopal vide order dated 23.01.2023. Now it is to be seen whether the omission on the part of the 5 | P a g e

ITA No.114/Agr/2026 assessee from exhibiting its revenue/capital expenditures in the income tax return and non filing of mandatory audited report in form 10B on or before due date and before with filing of ITR can be allowed to stand, declining the credit of expenditures claimed by the assessee. 11. It will be relevant to note that the law is nothing but an uncommon common sense. Any rule of procedure is only a tool for justice and if necessary, can be moulded to decide the real controversy. Procedural laws provide for natural way of doing things and do not bar even for adoption of additional procedure, as and when the situation may demand. There has to be a human approach in following the procedure prescribed so that it serves the ends of justice and it should not be applied in such a manner to kill the right/duty of any party. It is well established principle of law that the substantious justice cannot be denied on mere technicalities. The sole object of procedural law is to promote justice. The object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence. Procedural law is not to be tyrant but a servant not an obstruction but an aid to justice. A procedural prescription is the hand maid and not the mistress, lubricant, not a resistance in the administration of justice. Technical justice cannot take place of substantial justice. 12. We are of the considered view that the valid dues of the assessee cannot be denied due to mere procedural technicalities or due to the omission in furnishing the details of expenditure in the return. The entire 6 | P a g e

ITA No.114/Agr/2026

receipts without adjusting expenditure could not be added in the net income of the assessee. We, as a tribunal, having the trappings of a court, deem it just and appropriate to exercise the power of implied authority and condone the said delay in filing audit report in form 10B and remit the matter back to the file of ld assessing officer, who will pass order a fresh in accordance with law after taking belatedly filed audit report in form 10B, into consideration. Needless to say that the ld assessing officer shall ensure the substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice. The aforesaid point is determined accordingly. Assessee’s appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. 13. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Impugned order dated 27.10.2025 is set aside.

Order pronounced on – 21.05.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (S RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 21.05.2026 Aamir Siddiqui, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

7 | P a g e