THE EDUCATION RENAISSANCE TRUST,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ मɅ
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD

BEFORE
SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
&
SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 1029/Hyd/2024
(Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year: 2020-21)

The Education
Renaissance Trust,
Hyderabad.
[PAN : AAATT4033C]

Vs.
DCIT,
Central Circle-1(4),
Hyderabad.

अपीलाथȸ / Appellant
Ĥ× यथȸ / Respondent

Ǔनधा[ǐरती ɮवारा/Assessee by:
Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, AR
राजè व ɮवारा/Revenue by:
Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR

सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of hearing:
26/12/2024
घोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Pronouncement on:
17/01/2025

आदेश / ORDER
PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M:
Aggrieved by the order dated 24/09/2024 passed by the learned
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the The EducaƟon Renaissance Trust
Page 2 of 5

case of The EducaƟon Renaissance Trust (“the assessee”), assessee preferred this appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust engaged in imparƟng educaƟon and filed the return of income for the assessment year
2020-21 on 29/12/2020, claiming certain income not to be included in the total income in terms of secƟon 11 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short
“the Act”).
3. CPC, Bangalore, however denied such a claim and raised a demand of Rs. 78,42,280/-, for the reason that the assessee did not file Form-
10 within the Ɵme permiƩed under secƟon 11(2) read with Rule 17(2) of the Act.
4. When the assessee preferred appeal, learned CIT(A) upheld the acƟon of CPC and denial of the claim made by the assessee on the very same grounds. Hence, this appeal.
5. ContenƟon of the assessee before us is that is due to the COVID pandemic prevailing at the Ɵme of filing of the return of income, though the assessee obtained the audit report under secƟon 12A(b) of the Act on 24/12/2020 itself and filed the return of income in terms thereof, could not file the Form-10 within the specified date, due to the then prevailing circumstances, lockdown and the availability of limited number of staff
members. Learned Authorized RepresentaƟve (“learned AR”) submiƩed before us that the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the hardship of the assessee and upheld the denial of the claim by the CPC.
6. Learned Departmental RepresentaƟve (“learned DR”) placed heavy reliance on the orders of the authoriƟes below and submiƩed that the assessee filed Form-10 on 22/1/2022 whereas the processing under secƟon 143(1) of the Act took place by 24/12/2021 itself, and it goes without saying
The EducaƟon Renaissance Trust
Page 3 of 5

that as the date of processing of the return of income, Form-10 was not available on record. On this score, learned DR jusƟfies the orders of the authoriƟes.
7. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. The fact remains that the return of income was processed on 24/12/2021, during the pandemic period. Impugned order clearly shows that Form-10 was filed along with appeal the appeal, but the learned CIT(A) looked at the non-compliance with respect to secƟon 11 (2) read with Rule 17(2) of the Act and declined to interfere with the denial of the claim made by the assessee under secƟon 11 of the Act.
8. There cannot be any denial of the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the Suo Motu proceedings in the case of M.A. No. 21/2022 in M.A.
No. 665/2021 in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020 by order dated 10/01/2022 held that in cases, where the limitaƟon would have expired during the period between
15/03/2020 and 28/02/2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitaƟon remaining, all persons shall have a limitaƟon period of 90 days from 01/03/2022, and in the event of actual balance period of limitaƟon remaining with effect from 01/03/2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.
9. Further, under similar circumstances the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal took the view that it would be in the interest of jusƟce to exclude the period covered by the pandemic in filing of Form-10/10AA/10BB etc.
Apart from this, learned AR cited that the view taken by the Hon’ble High
Courts of Gujarat, Delhi and Bombay in the cases of Trust For Reaching The Unreached Through Trustee (2021) 126 Taxmann.com 77, Associated Chamber of Commerce and Industry of India (2024) 165 Taxmann.com 510 and Al Jamia
Mahammediyah EducaƟon Society (2024) 162 Taxmann.com 114 respecƟvely in support of his contenƟon that when the assessee substanƟally saƟsfies the The EducaƟon Renaissance Trust
Page 4 of 5

condiƟon for availing the benefit of exempƟon as a trust, merely on bar of limitaƟon in furnishing the audit report in Form No. 10, the trust cannot be denied exempƟon under secƟon 11, in as much as the submission of the Form-10 is essenƟally a maƩer of procedure as opposed to being a mandatory condiƟon which may be recognised to be forming part of substanƟve law. He further submiƩed that in such situaƟon, the delay ought to have been condoned as it was due to the condiƟons beyond the control of the assessee, without any mala fide intenƟon.
10. On a careful consideraƟon of the maƩer due to the prevailing condiƟons of the COVID pandemic, mere non-filing of Form-10 within Ɵme, cannot be a ground to deny exempƟon to the assessee under secƟon 11 of the Act, and the learned CIT(A) ought to have condone the delay in filing such a Form when it was filed before him along with the appeal.
11. With this view of the maƩer, we set aside the impugned order to restore the issue to the file of the learned Assessing Officer to receive Form-
10 and to take a view on merits according to law. Grounds are answered accordingly.
12. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for staƟsƟcal purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on the 17th January, 2025. (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) (K. NARASIMHA CHARY)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

JUDICIAL MEMBER

Hyderabad, Dated: 17 /01/2025
OKK
The EducaƟon Renaissance Trust
Page 5 of 5