THE PROPERTY ASSOCIATION OF BAPTIST CHURCHES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-3, CHENNAI

Both the appeals filed by the assessee involving common issue on an identical facts, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear

First, we shall take up appeal in ITA No. 2355/Chny/2024 for AY 2016-17 for adjudication.

We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 119 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication.

The assessee raised 6 grounds of appeal challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the claim of assessee under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] on delayed filing of Form 10B.

Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is noted that the assessee filed return of income under section 139(4) of the Act on 21.03.2018 as against the due date of filing return on 31.03.2018. The CPC, Bangalore denied the claim of the assessee under section 11 of the Act for not filing the audit report in Form 10B vide order

The ld. AR Shri G. Akash, Advocate contends that filing of Form 10B is only directory and not mandatory and placed reliance in the case of Devasakayam Aangilappalli Paripalana Sabai v. ITO in ITA No. 933/Chny/2025 dated 05.08.2025 and submits that this Tribunal, placing reliance on case law, held that filing of Form 10B is only directory and not mandatory.

We note that the audit report is placed at page 50 of the paper book, which clearly shows that the assessee obtained Form 10B on 16.06.2016 for AY 2016-17. Therefore, it is clear that the assessee obtained audit report well before filing of return of income on 21.03.2018 for AY 2016-17 and, but, however, it was not filed/uploaded within the due date and the reason is best known to the assessee. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the order of this Tribunal in the case of Devasakayam Aangilappalli Paripalana Sabai v.

We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 134 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication.

We find the issue involved in AY 2017-18 are similar to the facts and circumstances relevant to AY 2016-17 in ITA No. 2355/Chny/2024, wherein, we have deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer and allowed the ground raised by the assessee, therefore, we hold our findings would be equally applicable to the assessment year under I.T.A. No.2355 & 2356/Chny/24 5 consideration. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced on 09th September, 2025 at Chennai. (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 09.09.2025