Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, M/s. Subros Educational Society (Regd), filed its return for AY 2023-24, claiming exemption under Sections 11 and 12. The AO, CPC processed the return under Section 143(1) and made disallowances, which were upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee contested this, arguing that the disallowance was beyond the scope of Section 143(1) and that the audit report (Form 10B) was filed within the stipulated time.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed Form 9A and Form 10B within the prescribed timelines, and the AO had processed a revised return dated 30.12.2023 as the original return, denying the benefit of Sections 11 and 12. The Tribunal considered the delay in filing Form 10B as procedural and directed the AO to re-adjudicate the issue of benefit claimed under Sections 11 and 12.
Key Issues
Whether the disallowance made by the AO under Section 143(1) for non-filing of audit report within time was justified, when the report was filed before the return and the AO processed a revised return as original.
Sections Cited
11, 12, 143(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
This appeal of assessee is directed against the order of the 1. ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 14.07.2025 pertaining to AY 2023-24.
At the very outset, the ld counsel of the assessee submitted 2. that the AO, CPC had processed the return u/s 143(1) of the Act and made disallowance which was beyond the scope and M/s. Subros Educational Society (Regd) jurisdiction of Section 143(1). It is to say by the ld AR that the AO, CPC denied the exemption claimed u/s 11 and 12 was not justified. The ld AR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has wrongly disallowed the claim of the assessee by stating that the assessee had not filed audit report in Form 10B/10BB whereas the assessee had filed the return on 27.11.2023 and had also filed audit report in Form 10B on 31.10.2023.
Per contra the ld DR relied on the order of the ld CIT(A). 3.
We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the 4. material available on record. We find that the assessee had filed Form 9A on 31.08.2023 wherein, it had exercised the option referred to in Clause (2) of the Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We also find that the assessee filed Form 10B on 31.10.2023. The assessee had filed the return of income on 27.11.2023, the acknowledgement of which is placed at pages 50 to 105 of the Paper Book. The assessee had filed revised Form 10B dated 29.12.2023 for the impugned assessment year and it had filed a revised return of income on 30.12.2023 and thereafter the assessee filed a revised Form 10B dated 29.03.2024 for the impugned AY.
Page 2 of 5 M/s. Subros Educational Society (Regd) The AO, CPC while processing the return filed had adopted 5. the date of filing the return dated 30.12.2023. We find that the revenue did not consider the original return filed on 27.11.2023 but processed the revised return dated 30.12.2023 as the original return and denied the benefit claimed u/s 11 and 12. We are also of the considered view that delayed Form 10B is only procedural in nature which in any case was filed before filing of return i.e. 31.10.2023. In the factual matrix of the instant case, we are of the view that ld CIT(A)’s decision to uphold the processing u/s 143(1) is erroneous and unsustainable in law. The AO is directed to consider the Return filed on 27.11.2023 and Form 10B filed on 31.10.2023 and adjudicate the issue of the benefit claimed u/s 11 and 12 afresh. The grounds are allowed for statistical purpose In result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 6. 5563/Del/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 05/02/2026.