RAJ LAXMI CHARITABLE TRUST,MEERUT vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7582/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 December 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10 (or 10A/10B) is directory in nature, not mandatory. Since the assessee had filed the audit report well before the assessment, the refusal of exemption was incorrect.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a registered charitable trust, had its exemption under Section 11(2) refused by the lower authorities for belatedly filing Form 10. The assessee argued that Form 10 was physically filed before the return of income and well before the assessment order.

What were the issues?

Whether the belated filing of Form 10 is a mandatory requirement for claiming exemption under Section 11(2)?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 11(2),Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Agarwal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24.12.2025Pronounced: 24.12.2025

O R D E R

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:

1.

This assessee’s appeal 2016-17 arises against CIT(A)/JCIT(A)-1, Chennai’s order dated 12.09.2025 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1080680562(1), in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned lower authorities have refused section 11(2) exemption to the assessee; a registered charitable trust, for the sole as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

3.

Faced with this situation, the tribunal hereby notices from a perusal of the case records that the assessee/appellant had physically filed its Form 10 audit report on 26.07.2016 i.e. well before submitting its section 139(1) return dated 11.05.2017 which followed e-filing thereof on 18.12.2018 i.e. again before the Assessing Officer’s assessment order passed on 19.12.2018. The Revenue vehemently argues that the above compliance is mandatory in nature and the assessee is not entitled for its impugned exemption claim in very terms therefore.

4.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee and the Revenue’s respective vehement contentions. I find no reason to concur with both the learned lower authorities respective findings rejecting the assessee’s impugned exemption claim. Suffice to say various judicial precedents including CIT v. Xavier Kelvani Mandal Pvt. Ltd. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 184(Gujarat) & CIT v. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries (1993) 201 ITR 325 (Gujarat), have already settled the issue that such a compliance of uploading Form 10 or 10A or Form 10B tax audit report; as the case may be, is only directory in nature. It is further reiterated that the assessee had duly filed its prescribed audit report in Form 10 vey well before from the learned Assessing Officer’s assessment (supra). I accordingly accept the assessee’s the consequential computation afresh as per law.

Order pronounced in open court on 24.12.2025.

More judgments on Section 11(2)

All 762 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →