LIONS CLUB ASHOKNAGAR CHARITABLE TRUST (REGD) vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/29535/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01063259202506 November 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions). The Court found that the respondents had adopted a hyper-technical approach in refusing to condone the delay without appreciating that the petitioner's inability to file Form 10B within the prescribed period was due to procedural requirements of obtaining an 'Order Giving Effect' after registration under Section 12AA. The Court held that the delay was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause, constituting genuine hardship as contemplated in Circular No. 9/2015. The failure to appreciate this led to an erroneous conclusion. The Court, adopting a justice-oriented approach, deemed it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and condone the delay in filing Form 10B. The application for condonation was allowed, and the respondents were directed to accept Form 10B for Assessment Year 2020-21, with liberty to verify the petitioner's claim and proceed further in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Lions Club Ashoknagar Charitable Trust, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an order dated 17.04.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bengaluru. This order rejected the petitioner's application filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking condonation of a 44-day delay in filing Form 10B for Assessment Year 2020-21. The petitioner contended that the delay was due to procedural requirements following the grant of registration under Section 12AA and bonafide reasons, constituting genuine hardship. The respondents, the revenue authorities, supported the impugned order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-21, despite the delay being attributed to procedural requirements and bonafide reasons constituting genuine hardship as per Circular No. 9/2015. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the delay of 44 days in filing Form 10B was occasioned by the procedural requirement of obtaining an 'Order Giving Effect' after the grant of registration under Section 12AA. They contended that due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause, they were unable to file Form 10B within the prescribed period. This delay constituted genuine hardship as contemplated in Circular No. 9/2015 dated 09.06.2015, and therefore, the rejection of their condonation application by the respondent was erroneous and deserved to be set aside. Revenue's Contentions: The learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that there was no merit in the petition and it was liable to be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119(2)(b),Section 12AA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45016 WP No. 29535 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.29535 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

LIONS CLUB ASHOKNAGAR CHARITABLE TRUST (REGD) DOOR NO 1-4-143/3, RAJASHREE, MALEMAR ROAD, ASHOKNAGAR DEREBAIL MANGALORE 575006, REGISTERED UNDER 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1965 REP BY B S KALPANA, TRUSTEE D/O SHIVANNA, AGED 58 YEARS, FLAT NO.503, PRESIDENCY PARK, C G KAMATH ROAD, KARANGALPADY, MANGALORE-575 003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S V, ADVOCATE) AND:

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

(EXEMPTIONS) BENGALURU UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE,

MISSION ROAD,

BENGALURU – 560 027.

2.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS - WARD 1,

MANGALORE – 575 001.

3.

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE,

BANGALORE – 560 500. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ARAVIND.V.CHAVAN, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45016 WP No. 29535 of 2025

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 119(2)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) DATED 17/04/2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN DIN NO FOR THE ITBA/COM/F/17/2025-26/1075671442(1) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2020-21 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order at Annexure – A dated 17.04.2025 passed by the respondent No.1, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of delay of 44 days in filing Form 10B in relation to the Assessment Year 2020-21 was rejected by respondent No.1.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in relation to the aforesaid Assessment Year 2020-21, the petitioner filed Form 10B after the prescribed period along with the application seeking condonation of delay of 44 days in filing Form 10B interalia contending that the said delay was due to procedural

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45016 WP No. 29535 of 2025

requirement of ‘Order Giving Effect’ after the grant of registration under section of 12AA of the petitioner Trust and owing to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, the petitioner was not in a position to file Form 10B within the prescribed period. It was contended that the delay in filing Form 10B was due to genuine hardship as contemplated in the Circular No.9/2015 dated 09.06.2015 and as such, the respondent committed an error in rejecting the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T.Act, which deserves to be set aside.

4.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-Revenue would support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5.

A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the respondents have adopted a hyper technical approach in refusing to condone the delay without appreciating that the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to file Form 10B within the prescribed period was due to procedural requirement of ‘Order Giving Effect’ after the grant of registration under Section of 12AA of the petitioner Trust, who could file Form 10B subsequent to

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45016 WP No. 29535 of 2025

expiry of the prescribed period. The respondents failed to appreciate that the petitioner could not file its Form 10B within the prescribed period on account of bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, which clearly constituted genuine hardship on the part of the petitioner/assessee as contemplated in the said Circular dated 09.06.2015 and failure to appreciate this, has resulted in erroneous conclusion warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.

6.

Under these circumstances, by adopting a justice oriented approach and having regard to the valid and sufficient ground pleaded by the petitioner in support of its claim for condonation of delay, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and condone the delay in filing Form 10B by the petitioner by allowing the application filed by the petitioner. 7. In the result, I pass the following: O R D E R (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order at Annexure – A dated 17.04.2025, is hereby set-aside;

- 5 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45016 WP No. 29535 of 2025

(iii) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay of 44 days in filing Form 10B for the Assessment Year 2020-21, is hereby allowed; (iv) The respondents are directed to accept Form 10B submitted by the petitioner for the aforesaid Assessment Year 2020-21; (v) It is needless to state that the respondents are at liberty to verify the claim of the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law.

Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

SV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 59

More judgments on Section 119(2)(b)

All 980 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119(2)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →