Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed applications for condonation of delay in filing Form 10-B for assessment years 2015-16 to 2017-18. The CIT(Exemption) rejected these applications, holding that the assessee had not shown any genuine hardship or reasonable cause for the delay.
Held
The Tribunal held that orders passed by the CIT(E) under Section 119(2)(b) are not appealable before the ITAT, as they are not listed in Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate these appeals.
Key Issues
Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear appeals against orders passed by the CIT(Exemption) under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Sections Cited
119(2)(b), 253
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW ‘B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW
Before: SH. KUL BHARAT & SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY
O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M. These three appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(Exemption) rejecting the applications of the assessee under section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay in filing of Form 10-B by the appellant for assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. As all these appeals have been filed on a common issue, therefore, they are being taken up together for the sake of convenience. 2.
A.Y. 2015-16 being the first assessment year is taken as the lead case and our findings will apply mutatis mutandis to the remaining two appeals. The grounds of appeal
preferred by the assessee in are as under:- “1. Because the impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) is to totally contrary to the law and to the facts that are available on record. to 68/LKW/2025 A.Ys. 2015-16 to 2017-18 Kashyap Divya Jyoti Sewa Society
2. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) wrongly concluded the application u/s 119(b)(2) for delay condonation of Form 10B that preferred by the appellant.
3. Because the impugned order has been passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) without appreciating the merits of the case. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) could not appreciate that in the present matter all submitted reply and evidences, The brief description is given below as under....... i) No reply submitted by appellant for notice no. ITBA/COM/F/17/2022- 23/1050407026(1) issued to the office of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemption) on dated 04/03/2023. ii) No reply submitted by appeallant for notice no. ITBA/COM/F/17/2023- 24/1056306678(1) issued to the office of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) on dated 20/09/2023. Never filling audit report from last 10 years. Hon'ble Tribunal., I am saving that I already submitted......... 01) Online reply on Income tax portal of above notice no. ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1050407026(1) dated 04/03/2023 by acknowledgement no, 983308531150323 dated 15/03/2023. [Copy of acknowledgement attached) Annexure...02) Online reply on Income tax portal of above notice no. ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1056306678(1) dated 20/09/2023 by acknowledgement no 286848681220923 dated 22/09/2023. [Copy of acknowledgement attached] Annexure... 03) Sir, I submit a chart for online filling of form 10B and ITR from A. Y. 2015- 2016 to 2024-2025. [1) Copy of ITR chart and 2) Copy of audit report form 10B] [Copy of acknowledgement attached] Annexure....
4. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) could not appreciate that the application to delay condonation of Form 10B. It is on record that appellant has duly submitted all compliances/reply. Thus there is no any reason to rejection of application delay condonation of Form 10B.
5. As well as I also submit a rectification application on dated 17/12/2024 to the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) to rectify the order no. ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1070938253(1) dated 05/12/2024 but that is pending till today. Annexure……”
The facts of the case are that the assessee filed a series of applications on 20.02.20223 for condonation of delay in filing of Form No.10-B for all the assessment years which are the subject matter of appeal before us. It was submitted that the assessee had not been able to check that Form No.10-B had not been filed on time and therefore, permission was requested to condone the delay so that the Form 2 to 68/LKW/2025 A.Ys. 2015-16 to 2017-18 Kashyap Divya Jyoti Sewa Society No.10-B could be filed. A factual report was called from the Range Head. In the same, it was laid out that letters had been issued to the assessee separately in each assessment year requesting the assessee to submit certain documents and clarifications. However, the assessee had neither complied with the letters nor sought any adjournments. Therefore, the ld. CIT(E) held that since the assessee had not made out any case of genuine hardship resulting from such non-compliance and since the assessee had failed to show that it was prevented by any reasonable cause from filing the audit report in Form No.10-B on time, the applications for the condonation of delay were not maintainable. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the application, thereby causing grievance to the assessee who is in appeal before us on this issue.
When the case was taken up for hearing, the ld. AR Sh. Rakesh Kumar informed that the ld. CIT(A) had passed the orders in violation of the principles of natural justice ignoring the responses of the assessee which had been filed online and therefore, the assessee was preferring appeal before the ITAT in the interest of justice, so that the complete facts may be considered.
On the other hand, Sh. R.K. Agarwal, ld. CIT DR pointed out that the appeal was not maintainable because orders under section 119(2)(b) were not included in the appealable orders before the ITAT.
We have duly considered the submissions made by both parties. We observe that the orders passed by the ld. CIT(E) under section 119(2)(b) is not an order against which appeals lie to the Tribunal as the same is not mentioned in section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the ld. AR was advised that since the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to sit in judgment over orders passed under section 119(2)(b), the said appeals should be withdrawn as they were liable to be dismissed. The ld. AR accordingly, prayed that the appeals may kindly be treated as