SHREE GOVARDHANI SARVAJANIK SEVA SANSTHA THR ITS SECRETARY vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR
What did the High Court hold?
The Bombay High Court held that the petitioners' calculation of delay by referring to the filing of Form-10BB was incorrect. The relevant form for claiming exemptions was Form-10B, and therefore, the delay should have been computed up to the filing of Form-10B. Consequently, for assessment years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020, the delay in filing Form-10B exceeded 365 days. This meant the CIT (Exemptions) was not the competent authority to condone the delay. The court set aside the orders passed by the CIT (Exemptions) in these cases. For WP 11759/2024 and WP 11761/2024, the petitioners were granted four weeks to respond to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax's communication dated 30 October 2023. The Chief Commissioner was directed to dispose of the application for condonation of delay expeditiously within three months. For the remaining three writ petitions, where the delays were admitted to be significantly higher (865, 1930, and 1245 days), the court, noting confusion regarding the competent authority for earlier assessment years, directed the appropriate authority to consider and dispose of the applications for condonation of delay within three months. All contentions on merits were left open.
What were the facts?
The petitioners, Shree Govardhani Sarvajanik Seva Sanstha, filed multiple writ petitions before the Bombay High Court challenging orders related to the condonation of delay in filing Form-10B for claiming income tax exemptions. The petitions concerned assessment years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. The core issue revolved around the calculation of delay and the competent authority to decide condonation applications, particularly in light of CBDT Circular No. 16 of 2024. This circular stipulates that the CIT (Exemptions) can deal with delays up to 365 days, while delays exceeding this threshold require consideration by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioners initially calculated delays based on filing Form-10BB, which the court noted was incorrect as Form-10B was the relevant form for claiming exemptions.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the delay in filing Form-10B for claiming exemptions for assessment years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 exceeded 365 days, thereby determining the competent authority for condonation applications, as per CBDT Circular No. 16 of 2024? Assessee's Contention: The petitioners argued that their delays were within the limits manageable by the CIT (Exemptions), as they computed the delay up to the filing of Form-10BB. They approached the High Court to challenge the CIT (Exemptions) orders refusing condonation. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the respondents, implicitly argued that the delay calculation by the petitioner was incorrect and that the CIT (Exemptions) was not the competent authority for delays exceeding 365 days. For assessment years prior to 2018-2019, the revenue was unsure of the competent authority, suggesting it might be the CBDT.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (3 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
11-WP-11759-24+FM.DOCX Sayali IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11759 OF 2024 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11761 OF 2024 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15329 OF 2024 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11762 OF 2024 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15643 OF 2024 Shree Govardhani Sarvajanik Seva Sanstha
…Petitioner Versus Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) and Others …Respondents ______________________________________________________ Ms Prashant Kulkarni with Ms. Rachna Mamnani withMs. Ritika Rajeev i/b Mr. Vithal Sankpal, for Petitioner in WP 11759/2024, 11761/2024 and 11762/2024. Mr. Prashant Kulkarni with Ms. Rachna Mamnani with Ritika Rajeev for Petitioner in WP/15329/2024 and WP 15643/2024. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma, for Respondents. ______________________________________________________ CORAM: M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED: 07 APRIL 2025 Page 1 of 4 SAYALI DEEPAK UPASANI Digitally signed by SAYALI DEEPAK UPASANI Date: 2025.04.09 18:58:55 +0530
11-WP-11759-24+FM.DOCX PC:- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable in each of these Petitions immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The learned counsel for the parties agrees that a common judgment and order can be disposed of all these Petitions. 4. These Petitions concern the condonation of delay in filing Form-10B for claiming the exemptions. 5. The CBDT Circular No.16 of 2024, dated 18 November 2024, provides that where the delay is less than 365 days, the CIT exemptions can deal with the applications, seeking condonation of delay. If the delay is more than 365 days, then an application for condonation has to be considered by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. 6. Writ Petition No. 11759/2024 and Writ Petition No. 11761/2019 pertain to the assessment years 2019-2020 and 2018-2019. Accordingly, both these Petitions are covered by the Circular No.16 of 2024, dated 18 November 2024. 7. In the above two Petitions, the Petitioners claimed that the delay was only 135 and 140 days, respectively. The Page 2 of 4
11-WP-11759-24+FM.DOCX Petitioner computed this delay up to the date of filing Form 10BB. In fact, the Petitioner should have computed the delay up to the filing of Form 10B because this was the relevant form that the Petitioner was required to file to claim exemptions. Accordingly, the delay in these cases would exceed 365 days. 8. In both the above Petitions, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, by letter dated 30 October 2023, had called upon the Petitioner to submit further particulars to explain the delay. Instead of responding to the communication dated 30 October 2023, the Petitioner has rushed to this Court possibly to challenge the order dated 01 March 2022 made by CIT (exemptions), refusing to condone the delay. Since, in this case, the delay exceeded 365 days, CIT (exemptions) could not have dealt with the applications. The CIT (exemptions) order dated 01 March 2022, which is impugned in both these Petitions, is, therefore, set aside, and the Petitioner is granted four weeks to respond to the communication dated 30 October 2023. 9. Upon receipt of the Petitioner’s response and if no response is filed within four weeks, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax is directed to dispose of the Petitioner’s application for condonation of delay as expeditiously as possible and within three months. 10. As far as the remaining three Writ Petitions are concerned, the delay is 865, 1930, and 1245 days, as admitted by the Petitioner. Here again, the Petitioner has computed the Page 3 of 4
11-WP-11759-24+FM.DOCX delay up to the date of filing Form 10BB. Therefore, the delay might be more significant. 11. The learned Counsel for the parties cannot apprise this Court about the authority competent to consider applications for condonation of delay for assessment years before 2018- 2019. However, the CIT (Exemptions) has declined to condone the delay in this case. The learned Counsel for the Respondents faintly suggests that such powers might vested with the CBDT. 12. Considering this confusion, we set aside the orders made by the Commissioner (exemption) and direct the appropriate authority to consider and dispose of Petitioner’s applications for condonation of delay within three months from today. The Petitions are disposed of in the above terms. All contentions of all parties on merits are left open. 13. The rule is made absolute in these Petitions in the above terms without any cost orders. 14. All concerned parties must act upon the authenticated copy of this order. (Jitendra Jain, J) (M.S. Sonak, J) Page 4 of 4
More judgments on Section 10(23C)
- Sheo Narayan Trust, Khajpura vs CIT Exemption, PatnaITA 554/PAT/2026[2025-2026]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2025-2026
- Gurukul Shiksha Sanstha, Chandrapur vs ITO Ward - 3, Exemp, NagpurITA 549/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Sri Jawahar Education Trust, Chamarajanagar vs The Income Tax Officer Ward 1…ITA 1735/BANG/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Neuro Spinal Services and Research Society… vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption…ITA 1601/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2025-26
- Samudayik Kendra Subhash Nagar Prabhand… vs Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, JaipurITA 1440/JPR/2026[2027-28]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2027-28
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shadab Malik vs. State Of U.P. And 2 OthersAllahabad · 26 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026