SAU DWARKABAI TAI KARVA CHARITABLE PUBLIC TRUST vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/4162/2025HC BombayHCBM01012420202525 March 2025Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M.S. SONAK,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JITENDRA SHANTILAL JAIN4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that sufficient cause was shown for the condonation of delay in filing Form-10. The Court considered the peculiar facts, including the Petitioner being a small charitable trust engaged in educational scholarships, the challenges faced during the COVID-19 pandemic which had just ended, and the Petitioner's past diligence in filing necessary forms. The Court noted the absence of malafides and that the Petitioner had not gained any undue advantage from the delay. The fact that the return was filed within the prescribed period, and the delay occurred only in filing Form-10 after the lacuna was pointed out, was also considered. The Court acknowledged the Petitioner's lack of professional assistance. Therefore, the impugned communication/order dated August 8, 2024, was set aside, and the Petitioner's application for condonation of delay was allowed. The Petitioner was permitted to file consequential applications. The rule was made absolute without costs.

What were the facts?

The Petitioner, Sau Dwarkabai Tai Karwa Charitable Public Trust, Nashik, a registered charitable trust under Section 12A since December 12, 2003, filed its income tax return for Assessment Year 2021-2022 on January 12, 2022, and Form-10B on January 10, 2022. An intimation under Section 143(1) was received on September 14, 2022. Form-10 was filed on November 12, 2022, which was delayed. The Petitioner filed an application on February 10, 2024, seeking condonation of this delay. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)-Pune at Nashik, by an order dated August 8, 2024, rejected the condonation application. A recovery notice was issued on September 17, 2024, leading to the present writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Petitioner has shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing Form-10 for Assessment Year 2021-2022, thereby warranting condonation under Section 11A of the IT Act (implied by the context of condonation of delay for a form related to exemptions)? Assessee's Contentions: The Petitioner argued that while the application for condonation of delay might not have detailed many reasons, the attendant circumstances should be considered. The Petitioner is a small charitable trust engaged in awarding scholarships. The returns were filed during the extended period due to the COVID-19 pandemic, making documentation challenging. The trust has been diligent in previous years, acted without malafides, and gained no undue advantage from the delay. The Petitioner also relied on a precedent where similar circumstances led to condonation. The Petitioner lacked professional assistance in filing the application. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that not many reasons were set out in the application explaining the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A,Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT-19-WP-4162-25(1).DOCX Chaitanya IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4162 OF 2025 Sau Dwarkabai Tai Karwa Charitable Public Trust, Nashik. …Petitioner Versus Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)-Pune at Nashik And Ors. …Respondents ______________________________________________________ Mr Devendra Jain a/w Mr Shashank Mehta, Ms Radha Halbe, for Petitioner. Mr A. K. Saxena, for Respondent-Revenue. ______________________________________________________ CORAM: M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED: 25 MARCH 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER- M.S. SONAK):- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. This Petition challenges the communication/order dated 08 August 2024, by which the CIT Exemption, Pune at Nashik, has dismissed the Petitioner’s application for condonation of delay in filing Form-10 for the Assessment Year 2021-2022. The Petitioner is a charitable trust which was granted Page 1 of 4 CHAITANYA ASHOK JADHAV Digitally signed by CHAITANYA ASHOK JADHAV Date: 2025.03.26 17:46:19 +0530 JUDGMENT-19-WP-4162-25(1).DOCX registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “IT Act”), on 12 December 2003. 4. For the Assessment Year 2021-2022, the Petitioner filed income tax returns on 12 January 2022. Two days earlier, on 10 January 2022, the Petitioner filed the necessary Form-10B for the said assessment year. 5. On 14 September 2022, the Petitioner received an intimation under Section 143(1) of the IT Act. The Petitioner then filed Form-10 on 12 November 2022. Since this was filed after delay, upon pointing out the delay, the Petitioner filed an Application on 10 February 2024, seeking condonation of delay. By the impugned communication/order dated 08 August 2024, the Application seeking condonation of delay has been rejected. On 17 September 2024, a copy of the recovery notice was also issued to the Petitioner. Hence, this Petition. 6. From the perusal of the Application dated 10 February 2024, it is true, as contended by Mr Saxena, learned counsel for the Revenue, that not many reasons have been set out explaining the delay. Still, given the peculiar facts in this case, we cannot overlook the attendant circumstances and consider the cause shown in the light of such attendant circumstances. 7. The record shows that the Petitioner is a small charitable trust engaged inter-alia in awarding scholarships for educational purposes. The returns were filed for Assessment Year 2021-2022 during the extended period due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This means that the COVID-19 pandemic had just ended, and during this pandemic, it must Page 2 of 4 JUDGMENT-19-WP-4162-25(1).DOCX have been challenging for Petitioner-Trust to have its

documentation in order.

8.

The record also shows that the Petitioner has been diligent and punctual in filing the necessary Form-10 along with its returns for the previous years. The Petitioner, in its application for condonation of delay, has relied upon a precedent, thereby suggesting that the circumstances referred to in the precedent were not qualitatively different from those in the Petitioner's case. There are no malafides involved, and it is not as if the Petitioner has gained any undue advantage on account of the delay in submitting Form-10. 9. In this case, the return was filed within the prescribed period, but Form-10 did not accompany it. After this lacuna was pointed out, the same was rectified, but with some delay. From the Application for condonation of delay, it appears that the Petitioner did not have any professional assistance. This position was affirmed by Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the Petitioner.

10.

Therefore, considering all such factors, we think sufficient cause has been shown for the condonation of delay. In such matters, there is bound to be some lapse on the part of the party seeking condonation. However, suppose the explanation is acceptable and plausible and further. In that case, the Applicant has not acted malafide or derived some undue advantage from such delay; the cause shown could be accepted. JUDGMENT-19-WP-4162-25(1).DOCX

11.

For all the above reasons, we set aside the impugned communication/order dated 08 August 2024 and allow the Petitioner’s Application for condonation of delay.

12.

The Petitioner is now free to file consequential applications, now that we have condoned the delay.

13.

The rule is made absolute in the above terms without any costs order.

14.

All concerned can act on an authenticated copy of this order. (Jitendra Jain, J) (M.S. Sonak, J)

More judgments on Section 12A

All 6,064 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →