ANUPAM GIAN VIKAS PARI SHAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION DELHI & ANR.
What did the High Court hold?
The Delhi High Court directed the respondents (Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Delhi & Anr.) to decide the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10BB for AY 2020-21, which was filed on 13.03.2024, as expeditiously as possible, and in any event, within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order. The Court clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties were reserved. The reasoning was based on the Revenue's fair submission that they had no objection to a direction for adjudication of the earlier application. The Court did not decide on the merits of the condonation application itself, nor did it address the rejection of the later application dated 19.12.2024, as the focus shifted to the adjudication of the earlier one. The operative direction was to decide the application filed on 13.03.2024.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Anupam Gian Vikas Parishad, a charitable trust registered under Section 12A and eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C), filed its return of income for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21 on 15.02.2021. While the return was filed within the due date, there was a delay of 31 days in filing Form 10BB, which was required to be filed at least one month prior to the return. The petitioner attributed this delay to the COVID-19 pandemic. An application dated 19.12.2024 seeking condonation of this delay, filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Delhi on 29.01.2025, citing that it was filed beyond the three-year period from the end of the assessment year. The petitioner contended that an earlier application for the same relief was filed on 13.03.2024, within the stipulated period, but no decision was taken on it.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application dated 19.12.2024 for condonation of delay in filing Form 10BB for AY 2020-21, on the ground of being filed beyond three years from the end of the assessment year, was justified, considering the existence of an earlier application dated 13.03.2024 for the same relief. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that its earlier application dated 13.03.2024, filed within the three-year period, should be considered, which would render the objection regarding the delay in filing the later application moot. The delay in filing Form 10BB was due to mitigating circumstances arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and did not prejudice the assessment. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's counsel stated they had no objection to a direction being issued to the concerned authorities to decide the petitioner's application dated 13.03.2024. They acknowledged that if this earlier application was favorably decided, the other reliefs sought by the petitioner would not survive.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
W.P.(C) 5635/2025 Page 1 of 4 $~105 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 30.04.2025 + W.P.(C) 5635/2025 ANUPAM GIAN VIKAS PARI SHAD .....Petitioner Through: Mr Ajay Pal Kullar with Mr Pranndy Dey, Advocates. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr Shivendra Singh and Mr Yojit Pareek, JSCs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (ORAL) CM No.25679/2025 (for exemption) 1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 5635/2025 & CM No.25678/2025 3. Issue notice. The learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice. 4. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under: “A) issue a Writ of certiorari/ mandamus or any other Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:08.05.2025 15:55:39 Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5635/2025 Page 2 of 4 appropriate Writ/ order/direction quashing of the Impugned Order dated 29/01/2025 bearing no: ITBA/COM/F/17/2024- 25/1072676460 (1) passed by the Respondent No. 1, whereby the application dated 19.12.2024 of the Petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing the FORM 10BB for the Assessment Year 2020-21 was rejected/dismissed; B) issue a Writ of certiorari/ mandamus or any other appropriate Writ/ order/ direction against the Respondents to adjudicate and pass appropriate orders on the application dated 13.03.2024 filed by the Petitioner u/s 119 (2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 seeking condonation of delay in filing the FORM 10BB for the Assessment Year 2020-21; C) issue a Writ of certiorari/ mandamus or any other appropriate Writ/ order/ direction against the Respondents to not initiate any proceedings under the Income Tax-Act, 1961 qua the Petitioner pending adjudication of the application for condonation of delay in filing the FORM 10BB u/s 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2020- 21.” 5. The petitioner is, essentially, aggrieved by rejection of its application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] seeking condonation of delay in filing Form 10BB in respect of Assessment Year [AY] 2020-21. 6. The petitioner is a trust formed for charitable purposes. It is registered under Section 12A of the Act and is entitled to claim exemption under Section 10(23C) of the Act. The petitioner states that it has been running an educational institution, New Happy Public School, at Narela since 01.04.1989 and the school fee structure is the lowest compared to other schools in the vicinity. 7. The petitioner has been regularly filing its return of income and has Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:08.05.2025 15:55:39 Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5635/2025 Page 3 of 4 been consistently granted exemption under Section 10(23C) of the Act. The petitioner had also filed its return of income for AY 2020-21 on 15.02.2021 along with a report in the Form 10BB of the Act. Whilst the income tax return was within time, there was a delay of 31(thirty-one) days in filing the Form 10BB, which was required to be filed at least one month prior to the return. 8. The petitioner submits that there were mitigating circumstances resulting from the outbreak of Covid-19, and therefore, there was a delay of 31(thirty-one) days in filing the said form. It is also submitted that the same did not prejudice the assessment in any manner as it was filed along with the return. 9. The petitioner’s application dated 19.12.2024 for seeking condonation of delay in terms of the circular dated 18.11.2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes [CBDT] was rejected by the impugned order dated 29.01.2025 on the ground that the application for condonation of delay had been filed beyond the period of three years from the end of the assessment year. The petitioner claims that it had also filed an earlier application for condonation of delay within the period of three years, being an application dated 13.03.2024. But no decision has been taken in respect of the said application. The petitioner filed another application on 19.12.2024, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. 10. The petitioner states that if its earlier application, which is for the same relief, is considered then the objection that the petitioner had not applied within a period of three years would not hold good. Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:08.05.2025 15:55:39 Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5635/2025 Page 4 of 4 11. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue fairly submits that he would have no objection in regard to the petitioner’s prayer for a direction to the concerned authorities to decide the petitioner’s application dated 13.03.2024 filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. He points out that if the petitioner secures a favourable order, the other reliefs as sought for in the present petition would not survive. 12. In view of the above, we direct the respondents to decide the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay in filing the Form 10BB for the AY 2020-21 that was filed on 13.03.2024, as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of eight weeks from date. 13. We, however, clarify that all rights and contentions of the parties are reserved. 14. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application is also disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J TEJAS KARIA, J APRIL 30, 2025/tr Click here to check corrigendum, if any Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:08.05.2025 15:55:39 Signature Not Verified
More judgments on Section 119(2)(b)
- Jijamata Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari… vs ITO Ward -1, BhandraITA 102/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Pushpa Chandra Raj Singhvi Charitable… vs CIT(Exemption), Income Tax Appellate TribunaITA 8820/MUM/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Pratik Deepak Agarwal, Lonavla vs Assessing Officer, Ward 9(3), Akurdi, PuneITA 2227/PUN/2026[2025-2026]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2025-2026
- Pushpa Bitan Friendship Society, Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Exemption, KolkataITA 2607/KOL/2026[2018-2019]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-2019
- Tiong Woon Project & Contracting Pte Ltd… vs ACIT, Intl. Taxn. Circle-2(2), ChennaiITA 1883/CHNY/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026