SANKALP SOCIETY,SAHARANPUR vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), GHAZIABAD

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3. This assessee’s appeal raises the following substantive grounds in “1. The Ld. JCIT(A) has grossly erred on facts and in (aw in dismissing the appeal in limine without adjudicating the appeal on merits. 2. The Ld. JCIT(A) has grossly erred on facts and in law in sustaining the addition made by the CPC on the Sankalp Society ground that the appellant has not filed its audit report in form W-B within the due date.

The impugned intimation by CPC is grossly bad in law as it has processed a defective return under section 139(9) while no processing was made for the return filed in compliance to notice under section 139(9) after removal of defects.”

A perusal of the assessee’s above extracted pleadings indicates that both the learned lower authorities have refused to its section 11 exemption claim for the sole reason of belated filing of tax audit report Form 10B, on or before the due date of filing of section 139(1) return. The Revenue’s case accordingly is that the above compliance of timely filing of Form 10B tax audit report is mandatory. Case law CIT vs. Xavier Kelavani Mandal (P.) Ltd., (2014) 41 taxmann.com 184 (Guj.) has already settled the issue in assessee’s favour that the foregoing compliance of filing/upholding form 10B tax audit report is directory than a mandatory provision. That being the case, I find merit in the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance and direct the learned Assessing Officer to frame its consequential computation as per law after verifying all the relevant facts.