INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI vs. CNC CAC CHARITITES, CHENNAI

(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Ms.N.V.Lakshmi, Advocate, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA / NFAC / S / 250 / 2024-25 / 1074648172(1) dated 18.03.2025 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2016-17. The reference to the word “Act” in this order hereinafter shall mean the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time.

2.0 The only issue raised by the Revenue through its grounds of appeal is regarding the action of Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the Ld.AO by accepting the manual Form 10E filed by the assessee. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee trust was required to have filed its Form-10 electronically but which was filed manually. The Ld.CIT(A) has given relief to the assessee on the basis of impugned manually filed Form-10. The Ld.DR accordingly argued in favour of the order of the Ld.AO. 3.0 The Ld.Counsel for the assessee has argued before us that it is well within its right to have filed Form-10 manually. In support of its contentions, reliance was placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Motiram Gopichand Charitable Trust reported in 360 ITR 598. It was stated that in the impugned order Hon’ble High Court had said that once a Form-10 was available to the Ld.AO the primary requirement for the Ld.AO was to have verified the contents thereof and not get into the controversy of procedural requirements. The Ld. AO ought to have considered the substance and not the form of the controversy. The Ld.Counsel argued that similar decision was taken by the Hon’ble Jodhpur Bench of ITAT in the case of bhidbhanjan parshwanath jain as at 162 taxmann.com

8. It was urged that in the light of above judicial precedents no defect can be found in the order of the Ld.CIT(A). Page - 2 - of 3 4.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. It is trite law that Form should never prevail over the substance and that in the administration of justice the latter is more important than former. We have noted that the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly followed the judicial precedents as laid down by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and Jodhpur Tribunal. We are therefore of the considered view that no interference is required to be made to the order of the Ld.CIT(A) at this stage. We therefore sustain the order of Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss all the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue. Accordingly the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 5.0 In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 18th July-2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी. वर्की) (अधमताभ शुक्ला) (ABY T VARKEY) (AMITABH SHUKLA) न्याधयक सदस्य / Judicial Member लेखा सदस्य /Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, धदनांक/Dated: 18th July-2025. KB/- आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy to: 1. अिीिार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT - Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem. 4. तिभागीय प्रतितिति/DR 5. गार्ड फाईि/GF

Page - 3 - of 3