SANATHANA DHARMA TRUST vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the petitioner's audit report in Form No. 10B for assessment year 2018-19 was uploaded on 31.03.2021, which falls within the period specified by Circular No. 16 of 2022. This circular authorizes the Principal Chief Commissioners/Chief Commissioners of Income-tax to admit applications for condonation of delay under Section 119(2) of the Act, provided the delay is up to three years and the applicant was prevented by reasonable cause. The court found that the reasons stated by the petitioner for the delay qualified for condonation under the said circular. Consequently, the impugned order (Ext.P18) was quashed. The application for condonation of delay (Ext.P13) was directed to be reconsidered in light of Circular No. 16 of 2022 and the court's observations. Any demand for assessment year 2018-19 was to be kept in abeyance until reconsideration, with fresh orders to be passed within three months.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Sanathana Dharma Trust, is a charitable trust registered under Section 80G(5)(vi) and 12AA(1)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and also registered under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010. It has been filing returns and availing exemptions since assessment year 2009-10. For assessment year 2018-19, exemption was denied due to failure to upload the audit report in Form No. 10B. The petitioner applied under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay in uploading the report. This application was rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) via Ext.P18. The petitioner challenged this rejection before the High Court of Kerala.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing the audit report in Form No. 10B for assessment year 2018-19, under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was justified? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that there was a genuine cause for the delay in uploading the audit report, as evident from the rejection order itself, and that the delay ought to have been condoned in terms of Circular No. 16 of 2022. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the rejection order (Ext.P18) was not illegal, as the petitioner had failed to provide a proper explanation for the delay. The return was processed under Section 143(1), and the absence of Form 10B was noted, making the petitioner ineligible for exemption. However, the revenue fairly pointed out that Circular No. 16 of 2022 allows condonation of delay up to three years for genuine reasons, and the petitioner's report was uploaded within this period.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 80G(5)(vi),Section 12AA(1)(b)(i),Section 119(2)(b),Section 143(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is a Charitable Trust entitled to exemption in terms of the provisions contained in Section 80G(5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It also has a registration under Section 12AA(1)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as registration on the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 to accept foreign contributions to the Trust.
The petitioner has been filing regular returns of income since the assessment year 2009-10 and has been availing the benefit of exemption. For the assessment year 2018-19, petitioner has been denied exemption on the ground that the petitioner failed to upload the audit report in Form No.10B of the Income Tax Act. Petitioner, thereupon, filed an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for condonation of delay and for permission to upload the audit report in Form No.10B of the Act for the assessment year 2018-19. The said application of the petitioner has been rejected by Ext.P18 order and the said order is now under challenge before this Court.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent department submits that there is absolutely no WP(C) NO. 1663 OF 2023 3 illegality in Ext.P18 order and the 1st respondent has properly considered the application filed for condonation of delay and has rejected the same on the ground that no proper explanation for condonation of delay has been made by the petitioner. It is submitted that the return of the petitioner, for the assessment year 2018-19, was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act and it was then noticed that the petitioner had not uploaded the audit report in Form No.10B of the Income Taxt Act, which is mandatory for claiming exemption. It is submitted that the petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to claim any exemption in respect of his income for the assessment year 2018-19. However, it is very fairly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel that in terms of Circular No.16 of 2022 dated 19.07.2022, the Central Board of Direct Taxes has issued instructions in respect of failure to file audit report in Form No. 10B of the Income Tax Act , in respect of the assessment year 2018-19 and has directed that, for genuine reasons, the delay may be condoned provided the delay is upto a maximum period of three years. It is submitted that the audit report for the assessment year 2018-19 was uploaded by the petitioner on 31.03.2021 and therefore, the petitioner falls within the terms of Circular No.16 of 2022. WP(C) NO. 1663 OF 2023 4
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in reply, submits that there was genuine cause for failure to upload audit report in Form No.10B of the Income Tax Act as is evident from a reading of Ext.P18 order itself. It is submitted that the reason is genuine and therefore, the delay ought to have been condoned in terms of the instructions contained in Circular No.16 of 2022 dated 19.07.2022. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent-Department, I am of the view that since the petitioner has uploaded its audit report in Form No.10B of the Income Tax Act, on 31.03.2021, the same was within the period specified in the aforesaid Circular No.16 of 2022, which to the extent it is relevant, reads as follows:-
‘’In exercise of the powers conferred under section 119(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) by Circular NO.2 /2020 [F.No.197/55/2018-ITA-I] dated 03.01.2020 authorized the Commissioners of Income-tax to admit applications of condonation of delay in filing Form No. l0B for AY 2018-19 or for any subsequent Assessment Years where there is delay of upto 365 days and decide on merits.
Further to the powers delegated to Commissioners of Income-tax as discussed above, the CBDT hereby directs that where there is delay of beyond 365 days upto three years in filing Form No. 10B for Assessment Year 2018- 19 or for any subsequent Assessment Years, the Pr. Chief Commissioners of Income-tax/Chief Commissioners of Income-tax are authorized to admit such applications of condonation of delay under section 119(2) of the Act and decide on merits.
The Pr. Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner or Commissioners of Income-tax, as the case may be, while
WP(C) NO. 1663 OF 2023 5 entertaining such applications for condonation of delay in filing Form No. l0B, shall satisfy themselves that the applicant was prevented by reasonable cause from filing such Form within the stipulated time.’’ The reasons stated by the petitioner for delay in uploading the audit report also, in my view, qualifies for the condonation of delay as specified in Circular No.16 of 2022. 6. In the light of the above finding, Ext.P18 is quashed. The application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner (Ext.P13) shall be reconsidered in the light of the stipulations contained in Circular No.16 of 2022 dated 19.07.2022, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and taking into consideration the observations contained above. Any demand pursuant to the assessment order issued for the assessment year 2018-19, shall be kept in abeyance till the matter is reconsidered as above. The 1st respondent shall endeavour to reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. GOPINATH P., JUDGE ajt
WP(C) NO. 1663 OF 2023 6
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
More judgments on Section 80G(5)(vi)
- Samvedna Foundation Trust, Agra vs ITO, Ward Exemption, AgraITA 496/AGR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Sri Vrindavana Gokula Charitable Trust… vs CIT (Exemptions), BengaluruITA 1554/BANG/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2026-27
- Creative Foundation, Nandurbar vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)…ITA 1502/PUN/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2026-27
- Ladali Goshala Seva Sanstha, Daund vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), PuneITA 641/PUN/2026[2025-2026]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2026AY 2025-2026
- The Pyramid Spiritual Trust (Hyderabad)… vs ITO (Exemption) Ward 1(3), HyderabadITA 346/HYD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed2 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl.Dev Construction vs. The Proper OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Abbal Dass Arya vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Darbesh Medical Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 15 Oct 2026