SREE SIDDAGANGA MATHA EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION ,DAVANAGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1 , HUBLI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of exemption under section 11(2) of the Act if Form 10 was filed manually before the due date of filing the income tax return. The Tribunal drew support from a previous order of the Tribunal in a similar case.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed exemption under section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, setting apart Rs. 1,60,50,000. This exemption was denied due to the absence of electronically filed Form 10. The assessee contended that Form 10 was filed manually before the due date for filing the income tax return as online filing was not available at the time.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 11(2) of the Act when Form 10 was filed manually before the due date but not electronically.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- Navodaya Education Trust v. Deputy Commission of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bellary4 citing130 Taxmann.com 256 · 2021 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI WASEEM AHMED
PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Addl./JCIT (A) – 10, Mumbai dated 14/03/2024 in DIN No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1062657260(1) for the assessment year 2021- 22.
The only issue raised by the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in denying the exemption claimed u/s 11(2) of the Act, though the Form 10 was filed manually within the stipulated time.
In the present case, the assessee has filed I ts return of income after claiming the amount set apart for Rs. 1,60,50,000/- under the provisions of sec. 11(2) of the Act but the same was denied while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act in the absence of form 10 filed electronically.
On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the intimation generated u/s 143(1) of the Act.
Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.
The ld. AR before us contended that at the relevant point of time, there was no option available to file Form 10 in pursuance to the provisions of sec. 11(2) of the Act while filing the return of income online. Therefore, the assessee has filed Form 10 manually before the due date of filing the Income-tax return. The ld. AR in support of his contention filed the acknowledgment of the post office demonstrating that From 10 was sent to the jurisdictional AO dated 25/02/2022, whereas the date for return filing was 15-03-2022 for the year under consideration.
On the other hand, the ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is a fact on record that the assessee has filed Form 10 manually before the due date of filing the .
Page 3 of 4 return of income with the jurisdictional AO, therefore, we are of the view that the assessee cannot be denied the benefit claimed by it u/s 11(2) of the Act. In holding so, we draw support and guidance from the order of this Tribunal in the case of Navodaya Education Trust Vs. DCIT reported in [2021] 130 taxmann.com 256 (Bangalore – Trib.), wherein it is held as under:
“30. However; in the present case, the assessee has not filed Form 10 manually before the due date of filing return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Being so, the decisions relied on by the id. AR supra are of no assistance to the assessee. On this count, in our opinion, it is mandatory on the part of assessee to file Form 10-' manually though not electronically before the due date of filing of return of income with the jurisdictional AO. Since the assessee has even failed to file Form 10 manually, the assessee cannot seek to rectify the order of intimation passed u/s. 143(1) in the petition filed u/s. 154 on 11-1-2018. Accordingly, the first ground of assessee is dismissed.”
8.1 In view of the above and respectfully following the order of this Tribunal, we set aside the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow the benefit of exemption u/s 11(2) of the Act as claimed by the assessee as per the provisions of law. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 11(2)
- Kammavari Sangham (Regd), Bengaluru vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 1181/BANG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi vs Income Tax Exemption, Ward 1(2), New DelhiITA 1516/DEL/2026[2012 - 2013]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026
- Rkkr Foundation, Chandigarh vs DCIT, Exemption Circle 1, ChandigarhITA 477/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Rkkr Foundation, Chandigarh vs DCIT, Exemption Circle 1, ChandigarhITA 477/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Imc Society of Iti Govt Central Crafts… vs Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward…ITA 1850/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
